Uncertainty Principle Goes Up In Smoke
Meditationtime Forum Post
Date: Posted 3 years before May 01, 2016
MiBeloved 3 years ago
This article below is very important in debunking the uncertainty principle in quantum physics. This system of analysis was developed by Heisenberg and it stated that there is no way that you can check on anything without affecting that observed object.
The importance of it was that at first some physicists thought that this meant that you are your measurement which correlates with something that is stated in the metaphysics of the Yoga Vashistha, where guru Vashistha tried to convince Rama, his disciple, that the world was created in the mind of Rama and there was no objective world anywhere.
Rama did not like these views of Vashistha and as a result renounced his family guru.
Now a physicist named Rozema is debunking the uncertainty principle trying to say that if the observation is made with little exertion of influence, then the affect of the observer on the observing object will be negligible.
This ties in with what is called detachment in yoga, vairagya.
That means that in samadhi one can make an unbiased observation and bring back reports from that which is also called sabija samadhi which is a transcendental state in which the observer has some bija (interest).
Because the yogi has an interest in that state, his or her interest affects what is being observed and therefore his or her perception has some flaws in it.
There is another samadhi known as nirbija which is to say a transcendental state in which the core-self has no interest and subsequently he or she can get a true reading of the perception afforded in that state.
Please read this article below and see if you can make head or tail of it in terms of meditation practice. People are saying that so long as there is ego, it will have effect on what it perceives, and that view presupposes that there cannot be a neutral ego.
Is that a fact?
Is that the way you think it is?
Paul 3 years ago
A weak influence is still an influence.
No influence is No influence, but a weak influence means that there will be some effect.
A weak influence could also have a large effect. On small match could ignite a fire that could burn down millions of acres. A tiny drop of LSD could ignite a series of effects that could impact the observer for the rest of his life.
A weak influence is still an influence..
I agree with Heisenberg.
Alfredo 3 years ago
The way I learned the Uncertainty Principle at school was that the position of an electron (or any other sub-atomic particle) was always an unknown quantity. It was a cloud and the particle was somewhere. This position was dependent on momentum. Thus one could only know one or the other, but not both, and the higher the momentum, the less precise the position, and vice versa. This makes sense logically as momentum is mass x velocity, thus as velocity decreases, also momentum, and the possibility of finding the position.
The principle then concludes that the attempt to measure the particle, must perforce change its speed, thus its momentum.
But the flaw of the principle, is the flaw of science, that presupposes that a physical instrument of some sort, must be used to measure the particle.
Thus, verily, this little conundrum establishes itself as one of the limits of science.
However, taking what you wrote in “Uddhava Gita Explained”, when using your astral body you peeked inside an American craft in space and saw what the astronaut was doing, which is the same principle used by the African Dogon tribe sages to know the specific composition of the star Sirius, and neither you nor the Dogons used a physical spacecraft to go there, likewise, there is more to measurement than using a material instrument.
What Rozema could be saying is that the less the material exertion of influence, the higher the accuracy of measurement. Thus ethereal or astral measurement or vision, even a spiritual one, as the example of nirbija samadhi, must get us closer and closer to the limit of exertion.
Whether Vairagya applies here is another story, as Vairagya requires effort.
Must somehow differ with Paul, and see the limitations of the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg.
Signed: Alfredo Delregato, Mr.
MiBeloved 3 years ago
Paul Wrote:
A weak influence is still an influence.
No influence is No influence, but a weak influence means that there will be some effect.
A weak influence could also have a large effect. On small match could ignite a fire that could burn down millions of acres. a tiny drop of LSD could ignite a series of effects that could impact the observer for the rest of his life.
A weak influence is still an influence..
I agree with Heisenberg.
MiBeloved’s Response:
What is the conclusion then?
Should there be no observation, merely because there will be even a weak or negligible influence?
Alfredo 3 years ago
Another limitation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is the Kronecker's Delta Function:
This function is unphysical because it cannot be mathematically normalized, and can be used to postulate that particles neither behave as particles nor waves. This also would bring down the Uncertainty Principle.
So...how they behave?
Like thought does, supported by consciousness...enters the Yoga Vashistha.
MiBeloved 3 years ago
In the case of a sentient observer (human or animal, subtle or gross), that person's application of detachment (Buddhist principle of non-clinging) causes that there is negligible influence from that person as an observer to what is observed.
In fact it is the lack of this detachment application which causes the student yogi to lose sight of higher realities or higher focuses when meditating. Whenever the mind assumes the grasping observer status, the higher principle being observed disappears because it cannot be affected by the observer.
So that in that case the observed reality maintains its integrity while the student yogi finds himself or herself digressed to a lower plane with his or her significant influence.
Alfredo 3 years ago
Thanks Michael for above.
That is a very profound statement, and one I will keep in mind from now on when meditating.
Paul 3 years ago
If there is an astral or causal observation, then the physical instruments are still involved in translating the astral experience and recording process, and therefore we are back in the same place.
Now I might add here that Krishnamurti stated again and again that the "the observer is the observed", later on when prodding into the issue admitted that the " observer and observed are related".
This is worth considering because Krishnamurti was the friend and teacher of David Bohm, who had a tremendous influence on quantum physics.
My point however is that
1). All observation is influenced by the observer and translated by the observer through the organs of perception of the same observer.
2). The reliability of the translation is determined by the purity (not beliefs or good intentions,) of the observer filtered through the language and influences of the culture as well as the other instruments involved.
For example with the case of yoga vashista..we read his books (most of us) by people who are translating who have a certain cultural background and agenda, and the we read trough our own, and proceed to translate again what we’ve read...
3). Certainty is not a principal. Certainty has to do with things like faith, belief, and superstition.
4). Perhaps this is why Lao tzu said. “the truth that can be spoken is not the real truth.." of course this flips back upon itself and leaves the reader back with uncertainty.
So what is the way around this Dilemma?
It might begin with stopping making the assumption that your personal beliefs are not the same as truth, and that your personal beliefs are really just another way of expressing conjecture.
The intent is to deepen ones meditation..
Marcia Beloved 3 years ago
I agree with everyone to a degree.
But especially I side with Paul, in that the true litmus test is one's own meditation, leading to one's own direct experiences.
In the case of Michael, who has studied spiritual texts extensively, and also had much direct experience, can we be certain, without a doubt, that he did not process some or all of his experiences through the lens of what he read in spiritual texts like Pantajali's Sutras and Krishna's Bhagavad Gita? If he had never read these texts, would he be expressing himself and teaching differently?
Taking it further, should I believe Michael in full faith, based on his direct experience and his acceptance as fact of previous writers and yogis?
Believing in Michael's experiences as he processed them, or in any other advanced yogi for that matter, is probably very beneficial while one strives to have direct experiences of one's own. But the principal of uncertainty is still there.
I actually think the uncertainty principal exists all the way up to liberation, when a person makes the final exit from this dimension or world, and goes to a more permanent place.
The idea of having a teacher for guidance is given over and over in ancient spiritual texts. We are told that one cannot become enlightened or be liberated without a realized teacher.
Inherent in following a teacher is the acknowledgement of the uncertainty principal. We do not have to eliminate it or say it does not exist or has no influence. Uncertainty IS.
I think there is no other way to deliberately travel the spiritual journey.
Paul 3 years ago
Marcia makes an important point here.
The uncertainty principal is not something one can apply to what Michael is saying,
in the sense that, both the process that he gives as well as the energy to carry out the practice
are different than a scientist whose life is not one that involved purification of the instruments of perception.
They may set out to minimize the influence but, without the austerity of real meditation practice, it's really
theory and conjecture, even when they prove the theory by blowing something up and marvel at the wonder
of the way it's all applied. Thank you Marcia for making this distinction.
