image description image description

Join the SAND Community

Join the SAND community and be an active and integral part of the vibrant convergence of science and spirituality!

Read articles, watch videos, build local communities, explore, share and contribute to cutting edge ideas. Join scientists, teachers, philosophers, artists and fellow explorers in (re)discovering who we are. There are two levels of participation:

 

1. SAND Member – A free level of participation

  • Create your own profile and become an active part of the community
  • Participate in dialogues and have access to all the blogs content
  • Receive the SAND newsletter with the latest updates, news and more
  • Join and start conversations in the community section of the site
BECOME A SAND MEMBER

  

2. SAND Supporter - Actively support the movement with a monthly (min $10) or a yearly (min $100) donation

  • Create your own profile and become an active part of the community
  • Participate in dialogues and have access to all the blog content
  • Receive the SAND newsletter with the latest updates, news and more
  • Join and start conversations in the community section of the site
  • Enjoy specific content only available for our Supporters
  • Watch over 100 hours of unique video interviews
  • Start video “meet up” groups on specific topics
  • Obtain discounted rates on webinars, live streaming events and the SAND conferences
BECOME A SAND SUPPORTER

   

Science and Nonduality is a not-for-profit organization and your support will be FULLY devoted to our scope and mission: “To heal the schism between science and spirituality while forging a new understanding of what it means to be human – inspired by the mystics and grounded in modern science – while celebrating the mystery of life and the love that emanates from it!Welcome home!

+ START A conversation

LATEST CONVERSATIONS

Started by RoyDopson

Is the foundation of mathematics fundamentally flawed?

“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things “

If it is true that a physics equation that results in infinity must be discarded, then why is the current number system accepted as a representation of the physical realm? If mathematics relates to the physical realm, and the physical realm that we experience is finite, then mathematics itself must reflect this in entirety. The fact that the current version of the number system generates infinity, while all physical evidence points to a finite universe is a glaring indication that the foundation of mathematics is incorrect. Occam’s razor should have one question such redundancy.

What is it about the current number system that induce such infinite redundancy? What is the role of mathematics in physics? Is mathematics relating to the physical realm? If so, does it possibly lose this connection at some point?

Upon close examination of the number system it is apparent that there exists two points where redundancy arises. The first one addressed is primary and represents the movement of consciousness away from the unification of Brahman-Atman into ego. The second represents the splitting of consciousness into the separation of thought from physicality.

The primary arising of the number system within consciousness:

0 represents that which cannot be and/or is not described. It is not a lack or absence of something, but rather the potential for everything. 1, I submit, is fundamentally a representation of 0. This is the same relationship as Brahman-Atman. The relationship/interaction between 0/1, Brahman/Atman is so subtle, so immediate, that it has not yet given rise to dualism. In this model there is only 1. This would speak of the concept of 1 relating to all of physicality. 1 is not, fundamentally, representing apparently separate physical phenomena such as “apple”. The set of 1 includes all of physicality. If this is so, then how does 2 arise?

2 arises when consciousness attempts to describe/represent 0. Consciousness that has misinterpreted physicality to be fundamental Reality and the body to be Self, will search for the source of the ‘I’, which is the inherent intuition that Self is not the body. Consciousness that has fallen into the delusion that the physical realm is ultimate Reality will not be able to recognize Self as that which cannot be, and/or is not described. Such consciousness will, until Self is Realized, continue to search for the source of the ‘I’ as originating from physicality. This search is the thought process and manifests in the physical realm as symbol.

Consciousness that believes physicality to be ultimate Reality while possessing the inherent intuition that Self is not physical will attempt to bring that which cannot be/is not described into the physical realm. In relation to the number system, this is the equivalent of “counting” zero. The need to have Self as something, rather than accepting that Self is that which cannot be/is not describable, brings about the illusion that 0 = 1.

If 0 is counted – if Self is erroneously believed to be the set of 1 (physicality) – then 0 + 1 = 2. Consciousness that believes physicality is fundamental Reality attempts to quantify Self, which is that which cannot be/is not describable. If 0 is accepted and left to be the void of unknowing, it can be seen that 1 – the set of physicality – is Atman. 0 + 1 = 1. Unity. Nature. In such relationship Self can be Realized as source of the ‘I’.

The arising of infinite redundancy within the number system:

If mathematics does relate to physical experience, and physical experience is finite, then mathematics must also fundamentally be finite.

The point at which infinite redundancy arises is at the number 10. 10 is obviously a mirror-image the start of the system – 01. Intuitively, one sees this as a closed system. Why does it go past 10?

Firstly, if mathematics does represent physicality, I propose it is not in the classical sense of ‘counting’. I suggest that the numbers 1-10 are representing something far more elementary than the appearance of separately existing physical phenomena. The concepts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 where not ‘designed’ to be used to label and manipulate physical reality, but to reveal it.

Fundamental constituents, or levels, or realms, of reality seem to manifest as this set of 10. ie: the 10 dimensions proposed by string theory, and/or the realms/levels of: quarks, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, planetary, solar system, galactic, universal. I really don’t know what the physical constituents the concepts 1-10 are representing, but I have a strong feeling that, with the arrival of quantum mechanics, all of physicality has been revealed. Perhaps we just need to look at it through a different lens.

Back to 10.

How does the set replicate indefinitely? Firstly, as stated previously, 0 should not mean anything other than: “that which cannot be/is not described”. As ‘used’ at the beginning of the set, this meaning is inherently understood. 0 is the source of the set, it is not a part of the set. 0 is from which the set arises. It should, then, to align with any sense of symmetry, be that to which the set passes. It is the Alpha but not the Omega.

The 0 in 10 is part of the set. It should be left outside of the set. It should not represent anything. However, in the case of 10, it begins to represent a part of the system. This is the point where the number system stops representing physicality and BEGINS REPRESENTING ITSELF. If each symbol of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 relates/corresponds to distinct physical constituents, then
why does 10 also relate to the system itself? It is as if the final physical constituent is being represented by a symbol whose primary purpose is the perpetuation of the system itself. Do you see? The 1 in 10 represents not so much the ‘tenth thing’ as it does ‘one set of ten things’. The 0 in 10 does not represent/describe the ‘thing’ at all, but rather describes merely an aspect of the set. The 0 in 10 does not refer to anything physical at all. It is there only to perpetuate the system itself. It is dualism every way you look at it. 10 in no way represents unification or singularity. It is the fundamental representation of dualism.

Is the perpetuation of the system necessary in order to fully describe/reveal physicality? I have a strong feeling it is not.

Perhaps I’m a crackpot, but here’s what I figure:

The number system is not ‘intended’ to be used in the conventional sense of counting. 0 represents Self, which is “that which cannot and/or is not describable.” 1 represents the ‘All’, which is anything that is described/experienced.

Consciousness that temporarily falls into the delusion that the All is Self will still possess the inherent intuition that Self is neither that which is described or experienced. This inherent intuition is the ‘I’, or Self-awareness that human consciousness possess.

Consciousness that feels the ‘I’ will look for it’s source within the physical realm. Clues leading back to Self will be revealed if recognized correctly. One of these clues is mathematics. However, human consciousness has misinterpreted the clue and has misused it. This misuse has led to the infinite redundancy of today’s accepted number system, and to a greater misunderstanding of Reality. In order to use the system correctly, the number 10 should be replaced with it’s own distinct symbol and the system should not re-use 1 or incorporate 0 at all.

I realize how crazy this sounds, and I must admit that much of it is speculation, but there is something inherently wrong/incomplete with physics as a whole. How is it that, despite all of our understanding about the physical realm, the level of suffering experienced by humanity seems to be increasing? What good is all of the technology that has been developed through the findings of our current physical models? Seems to me that this technology has led humanity as a whole further away from Reality/Self. There is something inherently missing, incorrect, incomplete, with today’s science. I feel that we must stop ‘going forward’ and start, as Ramana Maharshi said: “go back the way you came.”

‘Going forward’ with more thought will simply create more questions and the attempt to answer those questions may in fact change the appearance of physicality in such a way that ever new questions will need to be asked, new theories to be developed. What if it has been, the whole time, that the mental energy put into the development of new physical theory, and the subsequent testing of that theory against physical reality has changed how physicality appears to us? Is that not what quantum physics is telling us? If this is true, then physics is a dog chasing it’s tail. Has not quantum theory shown us our own tail? Does the cycle end only when we stop, turn inward and find Self?

The answer is here. It has been for millenia. The metaphors may have changed, but Reality is the same.

One Iam:Zero is the problem. Zero is

RoyDopson:1. I can see that in the chick

Christina Munns:Thank you Roy for your reply a

RoyDopson:I disagree. .5 is not 2; it's

Christina Munns:I propose that two arises as a

Paolo Manzelli:<> <> is a wo

RoyDopson:There is translation of Nirvan

RoyDopson:Yes. And to include it as part

Mit Jones:Roy; Thank you for sharing yo

9 comments
+-

Started by RoyDopson

The Cycle of Samsara and Science

This might be really really important. Maybe.

As there has never been anything outside of your experience, your experience is that to which all conceptual models are relating.

Mathematics does not relate to the physical realm. The physical realm does not relate to mathematics.

Every system of thought, when traced to it’s source, will relate to/be a model of, the immediate interaction of the consciousness engaged in that very system of thought.

Every physical phenomena, when traced to it’s source, will relate to/be a model of, the immediate interaction of the consciousness engaged in/focused upon, the sensations that give rise to the appearance of those physical phenomena.

Thinking is relating directly, immediately, to the thinker. Sensing is relating directly, immediately, to the sensor. Thought and physicality are parallel systems, each emerging from and concluding to, Self. All apparent similarities between thought/mind and action/matter stem from this parallel existence.

If consciousness does not recognize that both systems independently relate directly, immediately to Self – that Self is the Source – it will attempt to join thought and physicality. That is, it will confuse thought as relating to physicality and/or physicality as relating to thought. The more consciousness attempts to connect the two systems at a Source outside of Self, the more convincing the illusion will become that they are causally related.

Consciousness that follows this illusion will believe that it is ‘getting closer’ to Source. It is not. Until such consciousness Realizes that all mental and physical phenomena are distinct mirror-images, directly, immediately revealing Self, it will believe that the mirrors are reflecting each other.

Such consciousness will be lost in delusion, re-creating metaphor based upon metaphor, not Realizing Reality/Self.

Cycle upon cycle upon cycle…

0 comments
+-

Started by mit

Quantum physics just got less complicated: Wave-particle duality and quantum uncertainty are same thing

Date: December 19, 2014
Source:
Centre for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore
Summary:

Here’s a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has demonstrated that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct are different manifestations of the same thing.
________________________________________

Quantum physics says that particles can behave like waves, and vice versa. Researchers have now shown that this ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply the quantum uncertainty principle in disguise.

Credit: Timothy Yeo / CQT, National University of Singapore; CC-BY
[Click to enlarge image]

Here’s a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has proved that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct are different manifestations of the same thing. The result is published 19 December in Nature Communications.
Related Articles
________________________________________
• Quantum mechanics
• Quantum number
• Quantum entanglement
• Electron configuration
• Schrödinger’s cat
• Introduction to quantum mechanics

Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner made the breakthrough while at the Centre for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore. They found that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply the quantum ‘uncertainty principle’ in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.
“The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,” says Wehner, who is now an Associate Professor at QuTech at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.
The discovery deepens our understanding of quantum physics and could prompt ideas for new applications of wave-particle duality.

Wave-particle duality is the idea that a quantum object can behave like a wave, but that the wave behaviour disappears if you try to locate the object. It’s most simply seen in a double slit experiment, where single particles, electrons, say, are fired one by one at a screen containing two narrow slits. The particles pile up behind the slits not in two heaps as classical objects would, but in a stripy pattern like you’d expect for waves interfering. At least this is what happens until you sneak a look at which slit a particle goes through — do that and the interference pattern vanishes.

The quantum uncertainty principle is the idea that it’s impossible to know certain pairs of things about a quantum particle at once. For example, the more precisely you know the position of an atom, the less precisely you can know the speed with which it’s moving. It’s a limit on the fundamental knowability of nature, not a statement on measurement skill. The new work shows that how much you can learn about the wave versus the particle behaviour of a system is constrained in exactly the same way.

Wave-particle duality and uncertainty have been fundamental concepts in quantum physics since the early 1900s. “We were guided by a gut feeling, and only a gut feeling, that there should be a connection,” says Coles, who is now a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute for Quantum Computing in Waterloo, Canada.

It’s possible to write equations that capture how much can be learned about pairs of properties that are affected by the uncertainty principle. Coles, Kaniewski and Wehner are experts in a form of such equations known as ‘entropic uncertainty relations’, and they discovered that all the maths previously used to describe wave-particle duality could be reformulated in terms of these relations.

“It was like we had discovered the ‘Rosetta Stone’ that connected two different languages,” says Coles. “The literature on wave-particle duality was like hieroglyphics that we could now translate into our native tongue. We had several eureka moments when we finally understood what people had done,” he says.

Because the entropic uncertainty relations used in their translation have also been used in proving the security of quantum cryptography — schemes for secure communication using quantum particles — the researchers suggest the work could help inspire new cryptography protocols.
In earlier papers, Wehner and collaborators found connections between the uncertainty principle and other physics, namely quantum ‘non-locality’ and the second law of thermodynamics. The tantalising next goal for the researchers is to think about how these pieces fit together and what bigger picture that paints of how nature is constructed.
________________________________________
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by Centre for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Oscillate:It is that easy! I'm trying to

Paolo Manzelli:<> <> is a wo

2 comments
+-

Started by RoyDopson

The last words you ever need to read.

As nothing has ever been experienced outside of the present, Presence (the present) is Reality. Therefore, any Reason put forth that introduces time, or that develops through time, moves away from Reality and projects illusion. Following illusion is delusion.

Reason that is contained/is closer to, immediate experience moves toward Reality. Movement toward Presence is Truth.

Why am I writing these words? I submit that I am writing these words because I know I exist while I am writing these words. Why are you reading these words? I submit that you are reading these words because you know you exist while you are reading these words. I am going to go all the way and state that everything that is experienced as a distinct phenomena – every single thought and every single sensation that ‘stands out’/is focused upon – is used as an affirmation of one’s own existence.

If you accept this assumption/observation to be true. Or better yet, see it clearly in and as your direct experience, the reason for every single thing you are motivated to do (“I will…”, “I want…”, etc.) is revealed. The reason for every single thing that everyone is motivated to do is revealed.

The reason why people think is because they know they exist while they are thinking. If you investigate this, you will come to see that this is the most profound philosophical statement ever put forth. When you come to realize this in/as your own experience, you will see that it is the end of thought.

Every single system of thought – religion, philosophy, the legal system, psychology, medicine, and yes, all of science – is missing the Reason. Missing the Reason, suffering occurs. The suffering is nature’s way of telling us we are off the mark.

Considering the above systems of thought:

Looking at the current condition of the human species, does it appear as though there is less mental and physical suffering than there ever has been, at any given point throughout the entire history of humanity?

It is obvious that despite the ongoing development/expansion of every single system of thought created by humanity, the level of vexation and suffering has remained unaffected. Many would say that the level of suffering has actually increased.

We are off the mark because we believe that thought will lead us to Self/Reality if we follow it ‘horizontally’, when it is pointing directly to Self ‘vertically’.

Who is reading these words?

NOW, do you see Self? Do you see the true Reason as to why consciousness uses thought? Every word is revealing, pointing to, the reader. It is an error to believe that the words are meant to reveal a deeper truth. There is no deeper truth, no more fundamental Reality, than YOU.

Consciousness that does not recognize this in/as it’s own experience will quickly disregard it as nonsense and fall back into horizontal movement. This movement is time-based and has no conclusion because it is awareness that is not focused on Source/You/the thinker.

And so, every system of thought continues to expand, trying to make the world a better place; questing after Truth/Reality. Scientists may try to convince themselves that their particular system is different. That this one is most definitely bringing consciousness closer to…

Who is reading these words?

One Iam:This is SAND. We're talking a

1 comment
+-

Started by RoyDopson

The collapse of the wave function as illusion, and the state of samadhi

What if the collapse of the wave function is an illusion projected by the act of conceptualization (cognitive measurement)?

If consciousness simply witnesses/observes, without making an interpretation, is there any thing(s)?

Take Schrodinger’s cat: If you open the box and the thought “cat” does not arise, in your world/experience, is there a separately existing phenomena “cat”? I argue there is not. Furthermore, if there is no separate “cat” within your awareness, then the distinctions “dead” and “alive” lose all meaning. Apply this to the seemingly separate phenomena “your name here” and what happens to “death”?

In the state of samadhi, where no cognitive ‘measurements’ are being made, the appearance of separation does not arise. There are no separately existing objects, no time, no individual self. The All is experienced as singularity. This must be experience of the wave function in it’s ‘uncollapsed’ state.

If the wave function can be described by mathematics, then it must be describing a phenomena that can be experienced, no?

Oscillate:Samadhi is sensoric experience

RoyDopson:*Crickets chirping* : )

2 comments
+-

Started by mit

We Study the Nature of Consciousness Without Considering the Consciousness of Nature

We have been given two gifts, Mother Earth and Father Time. We are destroying one and running out of the other. Perhaps it is time to step back and realize what consciousness is leading us to understand. We are an expression of consciousness – the plants, the animals, the Earth and the universe are all an expression of consciousness. This is what makes us one: We share the same origin, and we are “THAT”.

We have come to understand that we are experiencing a material world which is not material. Science calls it an illusion. Other traditions refer to it as Maya. The general public has not made the mental transition to accept this renewed reality, so we continue to ask the wrong questions.

Science has been persuaded to examine the outside world, to take thing apart in order to reach their conclusions. They have run out of parts to label and things to poke. Their tradition dictates they seek answers but the problem is in the questions they have asked. The questions have reduced them to simply describing what they themselves refer to as an illusion. While trying to peek behind the curtain they may have missed the show.

Spiritualists are persuaded to look within, in an effort to reach what is referred to as enlightenment. Each person may awaken to deeper understanding but in the end they are left with the same results. The best effort to describe the experience simply reduces the experience to a metaphor. In both cases what has been discovered is that our reality is far different then what we perceive. But instead of embracing the discovery we have chosen to ignore it.

The human being has placed himself upon a pedestal. He has the idea that he is the crowning achievement of consciousness. He has reached this very narrow view based on criteria he himself has invented. We are told the human has evolved by adapting to his environment, but he did not evolve through insight, he evolved through necessity. It is nature who creates the challenges that he must meet if he is to continue. In an effort to tame nature, man has placed chains upon himself, he has wrapped himself tightly in the illusion and now he cries out for freedom.

I believe there is a story being told and human beings have a part to play but this story is not about us, it is the ongoing story of creation. What we call an illusion is the miracle of form, the miracle of life and the miracle of evolution. We are here to record the experience.

I submit that all of nature, including the human is a symbiotic energy regeneration system. The universe does not store energy, it transforms it from potential to possibility. All that you are and all you experience is the transformation of energy to fulfill that possibility. Our relationship to all else is not relative, it is dependent. The human experience is no different from the plants, the animals the planet or the universe, for it is all the same energy. We speak of awareness as solely a human trait. Is the tree not aware of the sun, when it blooms in the spring or the bird when they fly south for the winter? Is the sea turtle not aware when it returns the beach, where they first experienced life? We experience nature differently because we live in a illusion and that illusion is that we are separate from “That”.

Nature is the story being told and it is god, not man is telling this story, perhaps we should listen.

Jay Jacobus:The "illusion" of reality requ

Mit Jones:Thank you Andrew; The phras

Andrew Brodis:Excellent, Mit! My thinking i

3 comments
+-
Page 8 of 12« First...678910...Last »
VIEW all conversations
image description image description

Thanks To Our Sponsors