Certainty we have no final theory of physics. There is no hope for a Newtonian clockwork theory being true, but what will be true is not known by humans yet.
My post was an attempt to convey what I know about the simple practical nature of quantum formalizations. I do not know much math that happened since 1960, so take it with a grain of salt. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Apr 3, 2011, at 14:32, mike brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Chris, > > Would this be another way of saying that the jury is still out on matters of > the quantum and macro systems? > > Mike > > > From: ChrisAustinLane <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, 4 April, 2011 2:51:40 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better a Roulette > > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >
