Current systems of quantum mechanics are deterministic but do not determine what happens, but determine probability distributions.
The collapse of these distributions into the macro world is not currently understood, but it seems to have something to do with the interactions between small systems and the whole mass of reality. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Apr 3, 2011, at 2:01, mike brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Steve, > > I'm not so sure that science has proven false the idea that all phenomena are > strictly determined. I think the jury is still out on that one. It's true > that what happens in the micro, quantum world is random and unpredictable, > but not so in the macro-universe. Determinism seems to play a major role in > life. Take a look at environmental determinism. The cultural life of mountain > people, being shaped by the mountains, is different from the culture of > fishing villages, being shaped by close proximity to the sea. Culture itself > plays a key role in determining the social and psychological life of an > individual. Likewise, being 6ft 2 and 200lbs it is highly unlikely I'll ever > be a horse jockey. Also, isn't it one of the core tenents of Zen/emptiness > that there is no object or phenomena that is self-created and independent - > everything is interdependent? Speaking for myself, I have no fixed position > on these questions. I do believe, however, there is a difference in > determinism and self-determinism (as opposed to predestination) and we do > make choices (freewill) that can influence the future. > > Mike > > From: SteveW <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, 3 April, 2011 13:21:34 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better a Roulette > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > > > Steve, > > Â > > I ask you which one of the four you support. > > Â > > '1' was missing. I put it back. > > Â > > Anthony > > > Hi Anthony. In my opinion, reality is a mixture of chance and necessity. Any > account of reality must take into account uncertainty and non-locality. These > two facts have been scientifically established beyond a reasonable doubt, > imo. This is why I don't endorse Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta asserts > that the world is an unreal appearance superimposed upon the face of static > Being. Advaita Vedanta believes in strict determinism. If you read Be As You > Are by Ramana Maharshi's student David Godman you will see that Maharshi > believed that all phenomena are strictly determined. Modern physics has > proven him wrong. For a while, some hoped that David Bohm's deterministic > hidden variables model might prove to be true, but few now accept it. As the > physicist Paul Davies comments in his book The Mind of God, the new physics > has driven the final nail in the coffin of strict determinism. > Some shit just happens, for no reason that can be given. You know, Zen people > don't actually give a philosophical explanation for existence, but the > Non-Dual Hindu traditions do. IMO, in comparing Advaita Vedanta with Kashmir > Shaivism, Kashmir Shaivism is actually more in accord with the facts. > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
