A Study of Qualitative Non-Pluralism

[Dyothelite]

I am a religious studies scholar with a focus on comparative theology. I am composing my fourth book on the relationship and similarities between theology and quantum physics. I will admit however that I am not a physics scholar. I would love to begin dialogue with people that could help me as well as be interested in my work. Feel free to interject. Here are some of my focuses right now. Please feel free to criticize them. I personally am currently focusing on four major points:

 

Quantum Physics shows: (?)

1. the universal interconnectedness of the physical universe

2. the inherent dependent nature of all matter and the non-existence of definitive individual building blocks

3. the impermanence of all matter and particles (decay)

4. the inherent inseparable relationship of observer and observed

 

Religion parrallels this as:

1. Universal One-ness

2. Dependent origination (nothing in this universe independently exists)

3. All things in this universe are impermanent (not eternal)

4. Illusory subject/object worldview is source of separation from God, One-ness etc.

Thus, God is universal, independent of cause, eternal and that an illusory worldview separates the individual from that reality.

 

If I am wrong in my physics declarations please show me the way.

Thanks

[Southtown]

I can't comment on or critique the physics, sorry. I have a couple questions, though. How did you come up with those theological assertions? And why would similarities between the physical and non-physical be significant?

[sanctus]

Welcome Dyothelite, here are some points/flaws/details I see:

1)It is the principle of causality (ie. cause implies effect), but it is not QM who shows it. And there are things which are separated causally (ie. two events are completely independent). But maybe I understood you wrong and you see the things in the light of chaos theory, where any small change can have huge consequences.

 

2) there are definitive bulding blocks, the standard model works quite well (at least up to the energies we get today) and quarks end electrons are nice building blocks (as well as the other leptons).Maybe with "definitive individual" you mean that they can be localized with 100% accuracy in space and velocity? Then you are right you can't.

 

3) electron does not decay, as the protons (but there is a theory who says that also protons will decay, but they have a lifetime which for us can be seen as close to infinity).

 

4) Nothing to add.

 

I hope it was understandable.

[Dyothelite]

1. By interconnectedness I meant universal unity as one universe, not a collection of individual objects

 

2. Are not even electrons built from smaller particles? And are we certain that quarks are the final piece of the subatomic puzzle?

 

3. So you are saying that electrons existed from the Big Bang forward and will always exist in the same form for the course of the universe?

 

4. And if you agree with the inherent union of observer and observed, does that not imply so sort of universal unity?

 

Thanks for the help, here's my dilemma, I have read that modern physics can show a universal unity in the universe as one whole essence. If that is the case how can we say that the universe is composed of a pluralism of definitve individual building blocks? That negates the idea of a universal unity as a universal composition of particles. I'm not saying they don't exist but are they seen as being entirely separated into a plurality? Please help.

Thanks man

[Dyothelite]

I can't comment on or critique the physics, sorry. I have a couple questions, though. How did you come up with those theological assertions? And why would similarities between the physical and non-physical be significant?

 

1. Universal Oneness is Augustinian (Christian) Vedantic (Hindu), Taoist and Buddhist.

 

2. Dependent Origination is the same

 

3. Impermanence is the same

 

4. Subject/Object illusion is mostly Eastern, but it is implied in alot of St. Augustine's work as well.

 

The importance is obvious, if we can establish a legitimate theological science we have common ground for theologians and physicists to move forward and clear up this mess that we are all debating in this forum. Too many theologians don't understand real physics and too many physics don't understand real theology. I'm trying to find the middle ground if there is any.

Thanks

[sanctus]

This is just a quick reply, more will come tomorrow, but in 2) you asked if we are certain, in physics I'm never (and I think many people neither) sure, you can only say so far it is empirically confirmed. One of my profs said once: "I believe that the electron is point-like until experience shows something different..."

[Dyothelite]

Doesn't the double-slit experiment show that when electrons are shot through they behave like waves anyways? This should show that until observed the electron doesn't exist as a finite particle, right? Thus, the essential reality of the unobserved physical universe is a one-ness of potentiality rather than a collection of infinite particles (?).

[InfiniteNow]

Doesn't the double-slit experiment show that when electrons are shot through they behave like waves anyways?

Sometimes, but not always...

 

This should show that until observed the electron doesn't exist as a finite particle, right?

In fact, it can. That's the strange part. It's both.

 

Since this is the Theology forum, however, I suggest you take some time to read through the following threads and post there:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/5327-double-slit-experiment.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/2419-schroedingers-cat.html

 

 

 

 

Cheers. :shrug:

[Dyothelite]

Sometimes, but not always...

 

 

In fact, it can. That's the strange part. It's both.

 

Since this is the Theology forum, however, I suggest you take some time to read through the following threads and post there:

]

 

 

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

 

I am first and foremost a theologian. My published books can be found on amazon. The feedback I am getting will help me formulate a solid theological argument. In fact, I'd encourage you to engage in this dialogue for the sake of theology. If you would like me to expand the theological nature of my posts I would be glad to.

Thanks

Christopher Etter

[Buffy]

Howdy Chris and welcome!

 

Here's some thoughts:

Quantum Physics shows: (?)

1. the universal interconnectedness of the physical universe

I'd argue no. Although quantum effects can be perceived at macro scales, they really only affect the atomic scale. The pieces don't even all work together, and although the Standard Model is designed with symmetry as a goal, there are still missing pieces, and if you are a String Theorist, you're looking for Super Symmetry, which requires lots of particles we may not even be able to perceive.

2. the inherent dependent nature of all matter and the non-existence of definitive individual building blocks

Non-existence? Um, we may not know *today* what they are, but they do indeed exist! There is a tremendous trap--well appreciated by History of Science mavens--that conclusions about "truth" drawn from *today's* knowledge almost always lead to fallacies!

3. the impermanence of all matter and particles (decay)

Protons and other particles decay on timescales so long that it boggles the mind. If protons decay at all, their *half-life* is at least 10^35 years (the universe is only 15^9 years old, so thats about 10^24 TIMES the current age of the universe :xx: ). And this is *IF* they decay at all, which has not been shown to be a requirement. The most fundamental notion that we have in all of physics (Quantum included) is the law of Conservation of Energy/Mass: nothing is ever created or destroyed, it only changes its form!

4. the inherent inseparable relationship of observer and observed

This is Special Relativity which at this point in time is completely disconnected from Quantum Mechanics. And in any case, SR says that the observer and the observed are actually *independent* of one another, just that their perceptions of one another are relative.

 

Religion parrallels this as:

1. Universal One-ness

I disagree. Many religions do not seek or even honor "oneness." Most pagan and polytheistic religions are of this form.

2. Dependent origination (nothing in this universe independently exists)

Again, many religions do not find dependency. Many--Hinduism, Mayan--do not even accept a "beginning" only endless, infinite cycles.

3. All things in this universe are impermanent (not eternal)

Gods are permanent. Souls are supposed to be eternal according to many. Are they "in this universe?" Hmmm. Maybe not. The line between coporeal and spiritual according to many have many points of contact (Mysticism).

4. Illusory subject/object worldview is source of separation from God, One-ness etc.

To some (Don Juan Matus) increasing illusion brings one closer to, well, something that's out there. I'm actually not sure what you mean by this one, but to tie it to SR, "how you see things depends on your point of view". Again this is not Quantum Mechanics, but I suppose that the notion of being able to perceive everything "as it actually is" rather than "as it appears relatively from your point of view" could be seen as desirable, but those of us who spend a lot of time trying to grok SR, find its strangeness actually opens quite a few doors of perception (without chemicals!).

 

You're going to have to talk some more about what you're after here. I will tell you as a marketing maven, that you can map anything onto anything else with enough verbiage and get at least a few people to believe it. In reality, the power of your ideas will stem from your ability to draw interesting conclusions and predictions from them.

 

The great knowers of Suchness paid very little attention to art, :phones:

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

Hey Buffy,

This will be short for now. I appreciate your physics input, but your theological assertions are less solid. Universal one-ness, dependent origination, impermanence, and illusory perception is essential to Christian Hindu Buddhist and Taoist philosophers.

 

Here is a start on my intention .

 

Double slit experiment: electrons behave as waves and particles when observed.

 

Dvaita Vedanta (dualism) says the electrons are particles.

 

Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism) says they are waves.

 

Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (qualitative non-dualism) says they are waves But through the eyes of an observer they qualitatively exist as particles.

 

To understand this better replace "electrons" with "individual self".

Basic overview.

[Buffy]

... your theological assertions are less solid.

Be careful: my definition of religion may be a bit broader than yours!

 

Be aware that my reading between your few lines so far leads me to jump to the conclusion that you are a seeker of commonality in places where others may reasonably argue there is none.

 

"Oneness" is a concept. It is not *inherently* good, nor necessarily is duality. You are clearly seeking it in many ways. Not all will share your opinions about these concepts.

 

But don't let me stop you: just be aware that even though this is the Theology forum of our little world here, scientific questioning of logic will be brought to bear, and assumptions will be asked to prove themselves, especially when an attempt is made to bridge the gulf between belief and science. Many of us can and do bridge the gulf all the time, but it is, as our good friend Uncle Al likes to say, a "Test of Faith!"

 

Question Belief,

Aunt Buffy

[sanctus]

This is Special Relativity which at this point in time is completely disconnected from Quantum Mechanics. And in any case, SR says that the observer and the observed are actually *independent* of one another, just that their perceptions of one another are relative.

 

 

I would say that assertion 4 is complete QM, the electron for example is localized only when you observe it (the nice feynman approach), ergo you see something different depending on what and how you measure.

[Dyothelite]

I'm sorry if I've come of as arrogant at all. Im actually really humble, I am just passionate about this.

 

Here is why I need help from physics scholars: If it can be proven that the universe is composed of an infinite amount of particles then Pluralistic theologies are valid, if we can prove that the universe is one universal whole without particles then Non-Pluralistic Theologies are valid, if we can prove that the universe is one whole, but at times contains particles (which are not inherently separate from the universe they exist in) the Qualitative Non-Pluralistic theologies are valid.

 

Bottom line, physics can prove the validity of certain theologies, and I am searching for scientific proof to help construct an appropriate theology.

 

My last text was a comparative study of religious philosophy based on the logical comparison of dualist, non-dualist or qualitative non-dualist worldviews. Every religion has threads of each in them depending on specific philosophers. With scientific validation we can single out valid and invalid worldviews based on science.

 

I am not adept in physics enough to claim assertions without help from the scientific community.

 

Thanks

[Dyothelite]

One more idea to pnder:

Is the universe not inherently united through gravity? Is there anything that is separate from all other things in the universe if all things are interconnected universally through gravity? Is not even every galaxy connected through gravity?

[Buffy]

If it can be proven that the universe is composed of an infinite amount of particles then Pluralistic theologies are valid...

Most currently accepted cosmological theories state that the Universe is "finite and unbounded". That implies a countable number of particles in the universe, unless you believe in the "and its turtles all the way down" theory of matter, which almost no one does, so you got a problem right there.

...if we can prove that the universe is one universal whole without particles then Non-Pluralistic Theologies are valid, if we can prove that the universe is one whole, but at times contains particles (which are not inherently separate from the universe they exist in) the Qualitative Non-Pluralistic theologies are valid.

:phones: Whoa. You lost me there. Define your terms:

• What is "a universal whole?" Cosmology says nothing about what is "outside" the universe, although there are some interesting theories about it like my fave theory from Andre Linde which still posits that the multiverses out there are finite and countable.
  
• What is "without particles?" Are you saying there are none? What do you mean?
  
• "not inherently separate from the universe they exist in?" Meaning they could be outside the universe they exist in?
  

And how do you justify the validity of the inferences you're drawing? Even if you define these terms, I don't see how that shows any support for the conclusions you're trying to draw.

Bottom line, physics can prove the validity of certain theologies, and I am searching for scientific proof to help construct an appropriate theology.

I think you first have to show that physics has anything to do with Theology at all. I can show that mathematics is involved with counting the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, but you need to do a lot more work to show that mathematics can *prove* that angels *do indeed* dance on the heads of pins!

 

My concern is that you're doing numerology here: trying to find some sort of similarity between scientific and theological statements and saying "see they're similar and therefore they must be related." As you'll hear me and others say quite often around here "correllation is not causation." You need to show *why* the parallels you see have *anything* to do with each other.

 

Is the universe not inherently united through gravity?

Until some Grand Unification Theory comes about, Gravity and Quantum Mechanics are *separate*! You need *both* gravity and electroweak forces to hold it all together!

 

Truth and beauty may coincide but are not strongly correllated,

Buffy

[Southtown]

One more idea to pnder:

Is the universe not inherently united through gravity? Is there anything that is separate from all other things in the universe if all things are interconnected universally through gravity? Is not even every galaxy connected through gravity?

If something were to exist outside of our little bubble of causality, we would not be able to detect it. Seeing it's light, seeing something that it effects, all chains of causality. Me thinks.