• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

The Double Slit Experiment & Buddhism's Interpretation.

mark.l

Alfrescian
Loyal
dumb fuck, the more you talk, the more stupidity comes out from your mouth. i cannot even believe someone is so stupid as you

Bro Vamjok,

Have some pity on him. He is like leongsam who gets his info from wikipedia.

Kryonlight,

Siddhartha Gautama was the most discerning person of his time. He spoke of what he discerned, and a disciple named Ananda wrote a lot of it down in the Pali language.

He spoke of planes of existence, and how the 'Great Brahma', having wished for creation, saw creation, and thought he had caused creation to happen.

So the same can be said of preservation by 'Vishnu', and destruction by 'Siva'. Or for that fact any other 'God'.

It is a fact that many people who seek to incorporate Buddhist philosophy into their belief system seem to forget.

However, observation does lead to phenomena in the observer himself. And this phenomena is what we need to discern.
 

kryonlight

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

I read your recommended lecture notes.

In Lecture 16, Slide 19, "Other Interpretations to the Rescue?", it quotes "Wigner, Penrose: Human consciousness".

I don't know why do you object to consciousness collapsing the quantum wave function when even your recommended lecture notes says that it's a plausible interpretation.

The American physicist Henry Stapp is also a proponent of the consciousness interpretation.

Biography of Henry Stapp

Stapp received his PhD in particle physics at the University of California, Berkeley, under the supervision of Nobel Laureates Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain. While there, he was a member of the Berkeley Fundamental Fysiks Group, founded in May 1975 by Elizabeth Rauscher and George Weissmann, which met weekly to discuss philosophy and quantum physics.[2]

Stapp moved to ETH Zurich to do post-doctoral work under Wolfgang Pauli. During this period he composed an article called "Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics," which he did not submit for publication, but which became the title of his 1993 book. When Pauli died in 1958, Stapp transferred to Munich, then in the company of Werner Heisenberg[3].

He is retired from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,[4] but remains a member of its scientific staff.[5]

Some of Stapp's work concerns the implications of quantum mechanics for consciousness.

Stapp favours the idea that quantum waves collapse only when they interact with consciousness. He argues that quantum waves collapse when intelligent brains select one among the alternative quantum possibilities as a basis for future action.[6] His theory of how mind may interact with matter via quantum processes in the brain differs from that of Penrose and Hameroff. While the latter postulates quantum computing in the microtubules in brain neurons, Stapp postulates more global collapse via his 'mind like' wave-function collapse that exploits certain aspects of the quantum Zeno effect within the synapses to explain attention. His views are explained in his book, Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer (2007).


[video=youtube;ZYPjXz1MVv0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYPjXz1MVv0[/video]
 

kryonlight

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
However, observation does lead to phenomena in the observer himself. And this phenomena is what we need to discern.

In Buddhism, even the observer 'disappears'. There is merely only the act of measurement. Consciousness is ephemeral.

The Blessed Buddha once said:
In the seen is merely the process of seeing...
In the heard is merely the process of hearing...
In the sensed is merely the process of sensing...
In the thought is merely the process of thinking...
So knowing, you will not be connected 'with that'...
So disconnected you will not be absorbed 'into that'...
So neither 'with that', nor 'within that' you are not 'by that' sensation!
When there is no 'You' inferred or conjectured by that very sensation,
then 'You' are neither 'here', 'there', 'both', 'beyond', nor 'in between'.
 

Psalm23

Alfrescian
Loyal
..... the more you talk, the more stupidity comes out from your mouth. i cannot even believe someone is so stupid as you

Rojak Scientist,

Since you are such a strong believer of the Darwinian theory of 'creation out of nowhere' and many real scientists (excluding you, of course) are stilll struggling to try to find an intermediate fossil between an animal (say a pig) and a human (like us, and you excluded, of course).

Perhaps the following may appease you. In fact, one can really find one intermediate being between a pig and a human, the ancestors of human race (your included, but mine). You can find this in the story of the Journey to the West....the 'Piggy' animal of half-pig and half-human I think you are truly searching for it. Sadly, evolutionists (like yourself) have failed to bring this out as part of your discovery that indeed there was a half-animal and half-human being that was indeed your ancestors (mine excluded).
 

vamjok

Alfrescian
Loyal
hello farktard, those "other" explanation is not the main stream view nor is it accepted by the common community. you mean this simple things i also need to explain?

i decided to lower your level to that of psalm23, thus i am providing the explanation;

in this field, no matter who you are, you can say or claim whatever fuck you want, that is your own fucking right. only after peer checking then the whole community will accept it as the current main stream view. which part of this peer to peer review you do not understand? ( a good example is how einstein views were being thrown out of the windows after the famous debate with Bohr. and yes even einstein)

the very fact that using merely a non-living probe can too cause collapse of wave function even if no one checking the result (the result is already fix) already prove this stupid theory wrong. which fucking part of this you do not understand. this is so bloody simple and i really so fucking cannot figure out you cannot see through this. this is the very reason why i object this view as simple, experimentally it does not make any sense as it has being proven wrong. no need to twist and turn and play around with words.

under such big name when you are a new post doc every one is dying to push for papers as its really do or die situation when you are doing post doc. if you cannot get any publication in 2 years you are out. and with pauli name on it, its easily published and go figure why he did not do so. forget it, people like you will never get this part, no offense
 
Last edited:

vamjok

Alfrescian
Loyal
Rojak Scientist,

Since you are such a strong believer of the Darwinian theory of 'creation out of nowhere' and many real scientists (excluding you, of course) are stilll struggling to try to find an intermediate fossil between an animal (say a pig) and a human (like us, and you excluded, of course).

Perhaps the following may appease you. In fact, one can really find one intermediate being between a pig and a human, the ancestors of human race (your included, but mine). You can find this in the story of the Journey to the West....the 'Piggy' animal of half-pig and half-human I think you are truly searching for it. Sadly, evolutionists (like yourself) have failed to bring this out as part of your discovery that indeed there was a half-animal and half-human being that was indeed your ancestors (mine excluded).

do you even pass primary school english? which part of this topic of duality on quantum physics is linked to what you are mentioning here? are you so fucking stupid to this extend kam lan kia
 

Psalm23

Alfrescian
Loyal
.........i decided to lower your level to that of psalm23..........already prove this stupid theory wrong....


The problem with human is that they are trying to elevate themselves with their so-called scientific discoveries and inventions......"If man can go to the moon, everything else is possible" is the primary belief of people who have put all their trust on these so-called great scientific discoveries and inventions. Make no mistake about it....going to the moon doesn't make you a 'god' (and as a side note, there are many scientists questioning whether there was indeed a conspiracy theory....did Neil Amstrong really land on the moon? A big question mark, and granted that man indeed did land on the moon, it would make him a 'god'.)

So, keep trying....the harder you try to elevate yourself (to be like 'god' or 'gods' and the more you trust science (rather than the true God of the Bible), the easier will be for you to fall you will.

Quite the opposite, God has to bring Himself down to become man. Because God has chosen to lower His level to that of man-sinner, we are now able to reaping this reward of eternal life......PROVIDED we accept Him as our sin-bearer and His redeeming blood....nothing can get you close to God, not even you land yourself on the moon one day.....the only way is to accept the redeeming blood of Jesus. And oh yes.....admittedly, I am at a level that cannot be lowered any further........remember....Jesus died to redeem the lowest of His creation, and that is the human race of which I am one of them.

And oh yes....in addition to the theory that you Rojak Scientist said has been proven wrong, may I add another one: The theory of evolution....this theory is deep crisis especially after the discovery of DNA, the language of life. (See: http://www.decodeme.com/genetic-code ). And how many times I have to tell you, Rojak Scientist: Language (or rather information) can only come from a mind. Even a simple inscripion of 1+1 = 2 that you find engraved onto a tree trunk will tell you that it is written by a human being....could be someone with primary 8+ education or some Ph.D rojak scientists! The fact that genetists spending decades decoding the human genome is a proven scientific fact that DNA is a language (or information) because the word 'decoding' or 'decode' is associated mainly with technical software computer programming. Please get registered this inside your brain (unless you are suffering from some kind of Permanent Head Damage (a PhD-related sickness).
 
Last edited:

kryonlight

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
those "other" explanation is not the main stream view nor is it accepted by the common community.

in this field, no matter who you are, you can say or claim whatever fuck you want, that is your own fucking right.

the very fact that using merely a non-living probe can too cause collapse of wave function even if no one checking the result (the result is already fix) already prove this stupid theory wrong.

These people are physicists who know their stuff.

Why should I believe what you said ("the result is already fix")? I don't see it as "fixed". There are physicists who don't see it as "fixed".

Not being the mainstream view doesn't mean that they are wrong. There remains the possibility that the mainstream view could be wrong. This subject of quantum weirdness is subject to interpretation. It is not testable. The Copenhagen interpretation it's just a view, that's why it's called an interpretation.

If you don't like my interpretation and the interpretation of certain physicists, please go and tell Roger Penrose and Henry Stapp that they are wrong because they even failed to comprehend elementary quantum physics in the way that you had comprehended. And most importantly, go and tell Edward Teo to update his physics lecture notes.

Otherwise, please go and fuck yourself in your stinking rabbit hole.
 
Last edited:

vamjok

Alfrescian
Loyal
These people are physicists who know their stuff.

Why should I believe what you said ("the result is already fix")? I don't see it as "fixed". There are physicists who don't see it as "fixed".

Not being the mainstream view doesn't mean that they are wrong. There remains the possibility that the mainstream view could be wrong. This subject of quantum weirdness is subject to interpretation. It is not testable. The Copenhagen interpretation it's just a view, that's why it's called an interpretation.

If you don't like my interpretation and the interpretation of certain physicists, please go and tell Roger Penrose and Henry Stapp that they are wrong because they even failed to comprehend elementary quantum physics in the way that you had comprehended. And most importantly, go and tell Edward Teo to update his physics lecture notes.

Otherwise, please go and fuck yourself in your stinking rabbit hole.

dumb fuck, yes there is a possibility that the mainstream is wrong. in fact it is surely wrong, however that is another story which stupid fuck like you will never get it. we are holding on to current theory as it is able to explain most of the current result and enable us to predict things. until another theory with STRONGER support from SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES - from experimental results, the theory that explain most of the experimental finding holds.

DUMB FUCK, physics is an experimental science, you do not say this theory is true and it can never be tested. religious fuck like you forever amazed me.

Next .......the wave function theory of probability is not testable???? stupid shit like you never heard of particle in a box model right? AND how good such crude model is at estimating simple real life model you have no fucking idea right dumb fuck?DID YOU FUCKING GOES TO UNIVERSITY? IT HAS FUCKING BEING PROVEN TIMES AND AGAIN AND MANY OF OUR FUCKING STUFF WE SEE AROUND US USING ITS PRINCIPLE STUPID FUCK. TEM AFM SO MANY TILL I CANNOT EVEN BE BOTHER TO LIST IT DUMB FUCK. WITHOUT THIS VERY PRINCIPLE WHICH ENABLE US TO PREDICT ALL THESE PROPERTIES, HOW THE FUCK ARE WE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SUCH TECHNOLOGY? REALLY DUMB STUPID SHIT.

there is no need for me to tell them they are wrong, the very fucking fact that their views is not accepted as the mainstream view very much tells that the whole community is telling them what they said is not convincing. stupid fuck, which part of this you do not get it? like psalm23, this is the fucking 2nd time i said this or maybe the 3rd counting from previous post. are all religious dumb fuck born to be dumb? In science, its not who you are that determines the theory is right or wrong. EVEN einstein his view has being thrown out of the windows during the famous debate with Bohr, and this is the fucking 2nd time i mention this incident to highlight this.

next Edward Teo is no longer teaching this but that is not important, anyway if you have a little bit of intelligent left in you, you should be able to figure out why this view is arrange such way under his slide. are you really so dumb and your views are so bias that you cannot tell this?

next i am holding on to the view of the mainstream, who is the one that is hidding in his hole holding a bias view resisting to change. unlike stupid fuck like you, when given proper evidence, i am always willing to change my view along with the scientific community. what about dumb fuck like you that hold on to controversy views just because of an bias interpretation that you already had ? who is the sutpid fuck here that is hidding in his hole
 
Last edited:

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
We should consider the fact that the universe today is in an excited, hot state with light and other particles filling the void in abundance. Whether there is consciousness or not, whether there is an observer or just nobody, these are just thought experiments but the real universe or multi-verse (pick whichever you prefer) exists with all these interfering elements. So the laws of physics as exhibited cannot exist without taking these into consideration.

It would be interesting to look at another phase in the universe's evolution where the everything slows down to the extent when external interference is a minimum. Will the same laws of physics apply?
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
Africans Also Bred With Archaics

Rojak Scientist,

Since you are such a strong believer of the Darwinian theory of 'creation out of nowhere' and many real scientists (excluding you, of course) are stilll struggling to try to find an intermediate fossil between an animal (say a pig) and a human (like us, and you excluded, of course).

This is a very poor analogy using a composite of pig and human. How about a lion and a fish -Merlion?

Africans Also Bred With Archaics

Scientists have discovered that humans are actually hybrids between different species.

It is now known that some modern humans have ancestry from Neanderthals or Denisovans. There is also evidence that Black Africans also bred with an African archaic population. This is not really a new discovery, but it is significant that even notorious anti-white racist Sarah Tishkoff is admitting this. A few years ago she was one of the most fanatical advocates of Out of Africa and "there is no such thing as race." The African archaic population was much older and more primitive than either Neanderthals or Denisovans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120726122118.htm

Her article fails to explain that the Hadza of Tanzania are known to be remnants of Capoid peoples. Negroid peoples originated in West Africa. At one time, Capoid peoples inhabited eastern, southern, and parts of central Africa. They were chased out and exterminated in most parts of Africa but still survive in southwest Africa as Bushmen and Hottentots. There are also a few isolated pockets farther north such as the Hadza. Pygmies originated in the Congo area and once constituted the entire population there.

"Using a statistical method, the team detected partial sequences in all three populations that appear to have derived from a hominin different from Homo sapiens. Much as recent studies have found evidence that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, these new findings suggest that the ancestors of modern humans in Africa mated with individuals from another hominin lineage. This archaic lineage appears to have diverged from the modern human lineage several hundred thousand years ago, around the same time that Neanderthals diverged from Homo sapiens." And now, even Tishkoff is writing about introgression! Actually, though, this lineage is much older than Neanderthals and diverged from Homo erectus, not from Homo sapiens. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.full

There may be other archaic genes in modern humans. Some anthropologists believe that Australian Aborigines are a hybrid between modern humans and Homo erectus. And, the Hobbit people of Indonesia, a pygmy form of Homo erectus, may have left behind descendants in Flores, Timor, and other Indonesian islands. In addition, skulls of archaic humans have been found on the Palau islands, near the Philippines.

The phrase "modern humans" or "anatomically modern humans" is becoming more and more confusing and ambiguous. It basically refers to modern mitochondrial DNA, which originated in Africa among people with small brow ridges. Large brains came from Europe and spread. Thin skulls came from China and spread to other parts of the world. Africa's contribution is small brow ridges and mitochondrial DNA. To liberals, small brow ridges are what makes us human.

Tishkoff also fails to mention the many Caucasoid invasions of Africa, some extending as far south as Kenya and Nigeria. In his early work, Louis Leakey described prehistoric Caucasoid invasions of Kenya. Black Africans are, to some extent, a mixture of anatomically modern humans, an archaic African species, and Caucasoids.

Here is a more intelligent article on the subject: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/archaic-admixture-in-africa-confirmed.html


"

1. Even the fossils we do have do not paint a picture consistent with the naive Out-of-Africa model. For example,H. sapiens idaltu (Herto) was hailed as our ~150ky ancestor when it was published, only to lose that title by the redating of Omo to ~195ky. Omo is more modern than Herto anatomically, so this is consistent with the idea of modern humans not being the "only game in town", when they make their entrance
2. Indeed, unquestionably modern, but archaic-looking forms persist in the available record down to a few thousand years ago, such as the Fish Hoek and Boskop samples"

"Hammer and his colleagues argue that roughly 2% of the genetic material found in these modern African populations was inserted into the human genome some 35,000 years ago. They say these sequences must have come from a now-extinct member of the Homo genus that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago."

"'Interestingly, the Mbuti represent the only population in our survey that carries the introgressive variant at all three candidate loci, despite the fact that no Mbuti were represented in our initial sequencing survey. Given that the Mbuti population is known to be relatively isolated from other Pygmy and neighboring non-Pygmy populations (26), this suggests that central Africa may have been the homeland of a nowextinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans.

"'The emerging geographic pattern ofunusual variants discovered here suggests that one such introgressionevent may have taken place in central Africa (wherethere is a very poor fossil record). Interestingly, recent studiesattest to the existence of Late Stone Age human remains witharchaic features in Nigeria (Iwo Eleru) and the DemocraticRepublic of Congo (Ishango) (30–32). The observation that populations from many parts of the world, including Africa, showevidence of introgression of archaic variants (6, 16, 19) suggeststhat genetic exchange between morphologically divergent formsmay be a common feature of human evolution'."

"The most interesting thing, to me at least, is not that Africans too admixed with archaic humans, but rather the time depth of the separation of the admixing groups: 0.7My, which contrasts with the 270-440ky estimated for the modern-Neandertal split by Green et al. So, it appears that archaic admixture may extend even beyond the H. heidelbergensis clade which is ancestral to modern humans and Neandertals, and may encompass late H. erectus populations."
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
Early Dates For Artistic Europeans

bird_bone_flute.jpg

cave1.jpg


Early Dates For Artistic Europeans
In the last decade there have been many scientific discoveries which are impossible to ignore. The old version was that intelligence began with Africans. Some Africans migrated to Europe and then created the first art, culture, jewelry, and advanced tools.
But, the birth of human intelligence was actually among Neanderthals, and even liberal scientists are forced to admit it.

"Early Dates for Artistic Europeans" Pages 1086-1087, SCIENCE, 1 June 2012, Vol. 336.
"For 150 years, Geissenkloesterle and other prehistoric caves in southwest Germany have yielded evidence of ancient human culture. The earliest known musical instruments--flutes of bird bone and mammoth ivory--were found in these caves, as were the earliest mythical figurines, both testaments to the creative powers of ancient people. Now new radiocarbon dates put modern humans in Geissenkloesterle several thousand years earlier than previously thought. As far back as 42,000 years ago, while the last Neanderthals were hanging out in western and southern Europe, modern humans were carving sculptures and making music in central Europe." Actually, these were Neanderthals, as has been proven in other studies.

"The early dates, published online last month in the Journal of Human Evolution, also suggest to some researchers that certain artistic behaviors emerged first in Europe rather than Africa. 'Very special things were clearly happening in this small area' of Germany, says archaeologist Paul Mellars of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom....These artworks include beads made of ivory and animal teeth; figurines of horses and bison; a half-lion, half-main statuette; and a bizarre figurine of a human female..."

"...This means that the Aurignacians were making art while Neanderthals were still in Europe. Neanderthals themselves began making personal ornaments and other symbolic objects in France and Spain about 40,000 years ago, shortly before they went extinct."

"But some, notably archaeologists Joao Zilhao of the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and Francesco D'Errico of the University of Bordeaux in France, have contended fiercely that moderns [meaning Africans] didn't arrive until about 38,500 years ago, and that the Neandertals invented these art forms independently."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/garret-loporto/surprising-way-your-neand_b_568455.html "It may be our Neanderthal genes that are behind virtually all human progress. New DNA data reveals that many of us are carrying Neanderthal genes. And not only that, but evidence is mounting that when those genes are activated in you, they can cause you to become incredibly resourceful, pioneering, creative... and utterly out of control."
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Early Dates For Artistic Europeans

Genetic studies show that Neanderthal genes for high intelligence mixed with African genes around 60,000 years ago. These Neanderthal-African hybrids were the first intelligent humans.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/human-on-human-sex/

"One measure the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the genomes of present-day Europeans and find that the last gene flow from Neandertals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000-86,000 years before the present (BP), and most likely 47,000-65,000 years ago. This supports the recent interbreeding hypothesis, and suggests that interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neandertals as they expanded out of Africa."

"Also, this admixture date is well after anatomical modern humanity, and well before the classical “Great Leap Forward” of behavioral modernity. "
 

vamjok

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Early Dates For Artistic Europeans

Genetic studies show that Neanderthal genes for high intelligence mixed with African genes around 60,000 years ago. These Neanderthal-African hybrids were the first intelligent humans.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/human-on-human-sex/

"One measure the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the genomes of present-day Europeans and find that the last gene flow from Neandertals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000-86,000 years before the present (BP), and most likely 47,000-65,000 years ago. This supports the recent interbreeding hypothesis, and suggests that interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neandertals as they expanded out of Africa."

"Also, this admixture date is well after anatomical modern humanity, and well before the classical “Great Leap Forward” of behavioral modernity. "

you actually bothered to reply to that idiot out of point random comments which does not make any senses.
 

wrcboi

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Early Dates For Artistic Europeans

AS long as its not in the bible...they will not believe it.....
 

kryonlight

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
yes there is a possibility that the mainstream is wrong.

And that's why I am saying that interpretations of quantum weirdness are not testable.

There are currently so many interpretations of quantum weirdness and you can't say with 100% confidence that a particular interpretation is the correct one. I prefer the consciousness interpretation and there are physicists who also prefer the consciousness interpretation. And you can't say with 100% confidence that we are wrong.

Or you can choose the instrumentalist interpretation (shut up and calculate) which isn't really an interpretation at all because it avoids the need for any explanation of quantum weirdness.

in fact it is surely wrong

Are you are saying that the Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong? Then which interpretation is the right one? vamjok's interpretation of quantum weirdness?
 

Psalm23

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Africans Also Bred With Archaics

This is a very poor analogy using a composite of pig and human. How about a lion and a fish -Merlion?......"

Admittedly, yes. My analogy of using a half-pig and half-man beast that you see in the story of the Journey to the West is very poor, but not irrelevant....and so too a lion and a fish-merlion. Why did you come to a conclusion that the half-pig and half-man is just an analogy? You mean there is no such beast...why then there are people still worshipping this animal (plus the monkey 'god', the 'mountain 'god' and their sifu)?

Nonetheless, all findings and 'analogies' that tried to prove evoluation are very poor and that include those so-called 'tons of fossils' that are meant to prove the intermediary being between a human and a beast. What they conclude from all these findings are always consistent and that is: given sufficient time anything could be evolved from anything....or worst, even from nothing.
 

kryonlight

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: Bernard d'Espagnat

I found this article by Bernard d'Espagnat and I liked it even more.

In Buddhism, what we call reality is merely a state of mind. This corresponds to Bernard's "empirical reality". "Ultimate reality" or "absolute reality" is unknowable. This is probably why the Buddha refused to answer questions such as 'Is the cosmos eternal or not eternal?'. We cannot know "ultimate reality" outside of the "empirical reality" presented to us by our consciousness. And there is no other mechanism to know "ultimate reality" other than our consciousness. Because to know means to be conscious.

Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind

A lifetime studying quantum mechanics has convinced Bernard d'Espagnat that the world we perceive is merely a shadow of the ultimate reality

I believe that some of our most engrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered. Anyone who takes quantum mechanics seriously will have reached the same conclusion.

What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".

This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.

How did I arrive at this conclusion? My interest in the foundations of quantum physics developed at quite an early stage in my career, but I soon noticed that my elders deliberately brushed aside the problems the theory raised, which they considered not to be part of physics proper. It was only after I attained the status of a fully-fledged physicist that I ventured to take up the question personally.

To put it in a nutshell, in this quest I first found that whatever way you look at it the quantum mechanical formalism, when taken at face value, compels us to consider that two particles that have once interacted always remain bound in a very strange, hardly understandable way even when they are far apart, the connection being independent of distance.

Even though this connection-at-a-distance does not permit us to transmit messages, clearly it is real. In other words space, so essential in classical physics, seems to play a considerably less basic role in quantum physics.

I soon found out, as often happens, that these things had been known for quite a long time. Schrödinger had even given them a name: entanglement, and had claimed entanglement is essential. But strangely enough he had not really been listened to. Indeed he had been unheard to the extent that the very notion of "entanglement" was hardly mentioned in regular courses on quantum physics.

And in fact most physicists felt inclined to consider that, if not entanglement in general, at least the highly puzzling 'entanglement at a distance' was merely an oddity of the formalism, free of physical consequences and doomed to be removed sooner or later, just through improvements on the said formalism. At the time the general view was therefore that if any problems remained in that realm these problems were of a philosophical, not of a physical nature so that physicists had better keep aloof from them.

I was not convinced I must say, and in the early sixties I wrote and published a book and some articles developing physical arguments that focused attention on such problems by showing that entanglement is truly something worth the physicist's attention.

And then a real breakthrough took place in that John Bell, a colleague of mine at Cern, published his famous inequalities, which - for the first time - opened a possibility of testing whether or not entanglement-at-a-distance had experimentally testable consequences.

The outcome confirmed my anticipations. Entanglement-at-a-distance does physically exist, in the sense that it has physically verifiable (and verified) consequences. Which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of our most engrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered.

Bernard d'Espagnat is a theoretical physicist, philosopher and winner of the Templeton Prize 2009. He is the author of On Physics and Philosophy, Princeton University Press, 2006
 
Top