Analogies between Quantum Theory and Relativity 8 February 2008
Posted by integralscience in Science.add a comment
Some aspects of measurement in quantum theory can be illuminated by analogies with relativity theory. For example, consider the classic double-slit experiment and a single photon which “measures” which slit a particle goes through. When one considers the particle-plus-photon system, the photon does not actually collapse the wave function so that it is localized in just one region of space. It merely entangles itself with the particle. Provided no decoherence has taken place, the coherence of the original system is not washed out in many degrees of freedom of the measurement system. As a result, there is no sense in which an irreversible measurement interaction has taken place. So one is still free to decide what will ultimately be measured. Because there has not been any interaction with a particular well-defined measurement apparatus (by which I mean a device that involves decoherence) the attributes of the system are likewise still undefined.
The above situation with regard to a quantum system is analogous to not having defined any particular well-defined reference frame in relativity. If I do not specify a reference frame for an observation of a monolith floating in space, then it has no definite well-defined value for various properties such as velocity, mass and length. Once the reference frame is specified, however, then one can meaningfully talk about definite values for these quantities. Similarly, once one specifies a particular measurement apparatus (that involves decoherence), then one can say there is a well-defined meaning to talking about certain properties. The coherence is lost and there is no practical possibility to erase that measurement choice after the interaction with the measurement apparatus and choose instead to measure a complementary observable. And all observers will agree on what is measured.
In connection with this, Pauli has this interesting statement:
Just as in the theory of relativity a group of mathematical transformations connects all possible coordinate systems, so in quantum mechanics a group of mathematical transformations connects the possible experimental arrangements.
And Bohr writes:
In neither case [of quantum theory or relativity theory] does the appropriate widening of our conceptual framework imply any appeal to the observing subject, which would hinder unambiguous communication of experience. In relativistic argumentation, such objectivity is secured by due regard to the dependence of the phenomena on the reference frame of the observer, while in complementary description all subjectivity is avoided by proper attention to the circumstances required for the well-defined use of elementary physical concepts.
Admittedly, the analogy with relativity only goes so far. In the case of relativity, the choice of reference frame is sufficient to provide a unique and definite value for physical attributes. In quantum systems, on the other hand, although the interaction with a particular decohering measurement apparatus gives a particular observable well-defined meaning, it still does not result in a definite value (i.e., the wavefunction is not collapsed). The analogy with relativity, it seems, is a similarity between the choice of reference frame and the choice of a particular decohering measurement apparatus. These choices are sufficient to give well-defined meaning to certain physical quantities. The difference seems to be that in quantum theory, even though the quantities may have well-defined meaning, they still have not been actualized. For example, once the atom has interacted with the Geiger counter and poison bottle, it makes sense to say that Schrödiner’s cat is either alive or dead (there is no longer any coherence that would allow one to perform a measurement of a complementary observable to the alive/dead observable).
The actualization of a particular value could be described in terms of the many worlds interpretation as the choice of which world “you” get identified with. In relativity, though, one can actually imagine something analogous, but we don’t regard it as a mystery for some reason: The description of the world according to relativity does not specify which moment in spacetime we should be experiencing as “here and now”. So, what determines which point in Minkowski space is “actualized” in our experience as here and now? Why should we experience this here and now rather than some other? This question seems quite similar to the question of why we experience ourselves in one of the many worlds as opposed to some other. What “collapses” us into a particular here and now? Clearly, there is no such collapse, just as there is no collapse in quantum theory. The theory is an abstraction from the here and now. If we get confused and think that we really live in the abstraction, then we become perplexed at how the specific here and now is mysteriously “collapsed” from all the possibilities in the general, abstract world we’ve dreamed up.
There is also an interesting similarity between the role of decoherence, which effectively cuts us off from ever detecting any of the worlds that have decohered from ours, and space-like separation in relativity. There are spacelike separated regions of spacetime that can not have any interaction or communication with us. So, what justification is there for saying that they exist at all? They can never be observed or verified to exist. Is this really any different than the other branches of the universal wave function that we can no longer detect because of decoherence?
Quantum Holism, EPR, and Bell’s Theorem 20 January 2008
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy, Science.2 comments
Quantum entanglement is a revelation of the undivided wholeness of nature. We find quantum physics so mystifying largely because we typically presuppose that nature is merely the sum of its parts, and not an undivided whole.
When a physicist views nature through the lens of an experiment, the measurements isolate and reveal only fragments of nature (for example, selected properties of a particular electron). When the physicist attempts to integrate multiple measurements, it is found that they can not be coherently understood as representing separate entities. They can only be understood as aspects of a wholeness that is not revealed in any single measurement.
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published a famous paper in 1935 in which they argued that quantum theory can not be a complete description of physical reality. In this paper, they described a situation in which two particles interact and then move off in separate directions. After a long time traveling apart, the particles are located far away from each other. Then EPR make the assumption that, because the particles are so far apart, they can not immediately or instantaneously influence each other in any way, and therefore they must be considered separate and independent of each other. This implies that a measurement of the properties of one of the particles can not influence the results of a measurement of the properties of the other particle. Quantum theory, in contrast, describes the two particles as a single coherent system, regardless of their spatial separation. Moreover, because quantum theory describes the two particles as a single coherent system, it does not specify the properties of the particles as independent of each other. Their properties are mysteriously entangled with each other and neither one even has definite properties until a measurement is performed on one of them. For this reason, EPR concluded that the quantum description is not a complete description of the particles as independent entities.
Bohr responded to the EPR paper by challenging the assumption made by EPR that, because the particles are spatially separated, they are separate and independent. For many years it remained a philosophical issue because, at that time, there was not any known way to settle this question with an experiment. Several decades later, however, several experiments were done (e.g., by Alain Aspect) which demonstrated that Bohr was correct: The “locality” assumption made in the EPR argument is not true of the world. There is a mysterious nonlocal connection between particles, no matter how separate they may appear to be.
These experiments are closely connected to Bell’s Theorem, which can be stated (very simply) as follows: “If things are really separate, then there is a limit to how correlated they can be with each other.” The experiments that were done showed that things are correlated more that the limit in Bell’s theorem. Therefore, we use Bell’s Theorem to conclude that things can not really be separate.
Quantum physics, and the “measurement problem” in particular, is so enigmatic because we normally assume that the world is made up of separate pieces that together form a whole, rather than as a whole that can appear to have different pieces. So, when thinking about these quantum paradoxes, rather than asking how there can be these mysterious connections between separate particles, it may be helpful to ask instead how does the appearance of separation and decoherence emerge from fundamental abiding coherence.
“Decoherence” is a misnomer. Really, there is only coherence. The theory of so-called “de-coherence” is describing what might be called the emergence of the appearance of fragmentation. There is no real fragmentation or de-coherence going on. It is only an appearance. So, the whole manifests explicitly as apparent parts, but the parts are not really separate parts. They remain a whole. There is thus no real difference between explicit and implicit. All is coherent and whole, and never truly departs from that.
Perhaps the theory of decoherence has something to teach us about the teachings of mystics. It may provide a metaphor for how fundamental wholeness can appear as having distinct aspects while still remaining whole. This is a play of form and emptiness, difference and unity. It is seen in the dance of relationship, in the experience of the world, in life. It is symmetry. It is beauty.
What changes with Awakening? 25 November 2007
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy, Spiritual Practice.add a comment
A paradox of Awakening is that, from one perspective, it may be described as an event in time that somehow changes something about experience at a fundamental level. It is a radical shift from a dualistic to nondualistic way of consciousness. Yet, from another perspective, it may be described as Awakening to a timeless dimension that is recognized as having always been present and always will be present. It is not a recognition of anything new, and it does not involve any change in the contents of consciousness. Which is it? This is a kind of koan of Awakening.
One meta-perspective on these perspectives is that neither perspective is absolutely true or final or correct, but in a given situation one perspective may be more valuable to emphasize as a way to help bring to awareness the limits of the complementary perspective and reveal what currently is not being fully recognized.
For example, sometimes we may be stuck in a view that Awakening is some new or different state, content or experience that we’ve yet to experience (and this reinforces the notion that we lack some “state of Awakening,” and that we need to seek and attain it, and that we might then lose it). It can then be helpful to emphasize the timeless dimension of Awakening to help recognize and release this one-sided view of it.
Conversely, at other times we may be stuck in a view that Awakening is only a timeless recognition that has no associated manifestations in human experience (and this reinforces the notion that Awakening has no consequence for human life, and is therefore irrelevant). To help recognize and release this one-sided view, it can be helpful to emphasize the changes in how life is experienced after Awakening as compared to experience under delusion, before Awakening.
All this is, of course, just one meta-perspective on these different perspectives about what Awakening is or involves. Other perspectives might also be useful. As for what is really the case about Awakening…that is a koan that only Awakening itself resolves.
The Law of Attraction and the Law of Karma 26 June 2007
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy, Spiritual Practice.1 comment so far
The “Law of Attraction” (which I understand is the “secret” of “The Secret”) apparently states that our thoughts/actions/intentions “attract” corresponding experiences into our lives. While rational Westerners might dismiss this as mere “magical” thinking, the world we experience is not simply “given” to us, either.
Our thoughts play a powerful role in constructing/mediating our experience (which is one thing that meditation practice is designed to help reveal). Change your worldview, for example, and you will experience a different world. Think and act in selfish ways and you “attract” experiences of suffering. Think and act in selfless ways and you “attract” experiences of joy. As we sow, so shall we reap. This is just the Law of Karma, of course.
But it seems that the Law of Attraction says something quite a bit different, namely, that particular intentions and thoughts will attract the object of our intention and manifest it in our lives. Now, that may or may not be true. But, in any case, the deeper Law of Karma still holds, namely, the more our intentions and actions are self-centered, the more we will suffer.
So, regardless of whether or not the Law of Attraction is true or works, if you practice it with self-centered motives, then you’ll end up suffering even if you “attract” what you wanted. If you practice it with selfless motives, on the other hand, then you’ll end up joyful no matter what. That’s the deeper secret, the more fundamental law.
The Error in Russell’s Teapot 26 November 2006
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy.add a comment
The philosopher Bertrand Russell has a famous argument called “Russell’s teapot” which is related to the maxim: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” i.e., the lack of evidence for something does not prove that it does not exist. When the belief in God is attacked on the basis that there is no evidence for God, believers sometimes respond with this maxim. Russell, however, argued that, in the absence of evidence, the burden of proof rests on the person asserting existence (e.g, of God) rather than the person denying existence (e.g., of God). Russell used the following example to argue his point: Consider the claim that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, so far away that no telescope can detect it. It is clearly more reasonable, he argued, to suppose that such a teapot does not exist than to suppose that it does exist. Russell used this argument to conclude that, absent any evidence, it is more reasonable to believe God does not exist than to believe God does exist.
Russell’s argument is often cited as if it were an established truth that settles the issue once and for all. However, I think there are some serious problems with Russell’s argument. In fact, I think it is invalid. First, teapots are not analogous to God: Absence of physical evidence for a physical existent is not comparable to absence of physical evidence for a metaphysical existent. Another problem with Russell’s argument is that his choice of the teapot as an example biased his conclusion. By picking another example, we can arrive at the opposite conclusion: Consider the interior of the sun. Just like the teapot, we can not see the interior of the sun with our telescopes. Yet, we would normally consider it more reasonable to suppose that the interior of the sun exists than to suppose it does not. So, in this case, the burden of proof would rest with the person who would deny that the interior of the sun exists. Thus, Russell’s argument only appears true since he deliberately picked an example of something that is ridiculous to suppose would exist.
The upshot is that Russell’s argument can not be relied upon as a general justification for asserting that, absent evidence for X, it is more reasonable to deny existence of X rather than asserting the existence of X. But this doesn’t imply the opposite, that it is more reasonable to assert the existence of X. All else being equal, absent any evidence, both existence and non-existence stand on the same footing. Based on logic alone, we don’t know enough to assert or deny the existence of anything.
The reasonableness of a belief in the existence or non-existence of X depends on the worldview we take for granted and how X fits into that worldview. Thus, the existence of the center of the sun is reasonable within a scientific worldview since it makes it more coherent and consistent, while the existence of a teapot in orbit does not. This observation makes it clear that what is reasonable is dependent upon the worldview that is taken for granted. As the worldview changes, so will the judgements about what is and is not reasonable to suppose exists without evidence. For example, in the traditional chinese worldview, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of chi, but in a materialist worldview it is not so reasonable. Neither the existence or non-existence of chi is reasonable independent of a worldview. We have to first make assumptions about our worldview to make such claims of reasonableness.
So, the existence of certain facts about the world is not so black-and-white as it might appear. Or, to put it another way, if they do appear black-and-white to us, then that’s a sure sign that there are some hidden assumptions at work in us that we are not seeing. In one worldview, it may not be reasonable to believe in a certain type of God. But that does not mean that there is not another worldview in which it is reasonable. Reason, after all, depends completely on the assumptions we start with, and reason alone can not choose those assumptions for us. Our discomfort with this fundamental existential ambiguity is one factor that I suspect drives us to cling so much to our way of seeing things, and fight against others who believe otherwise.
Compassion and Morality in Technology and Science 5 November 2006
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy, Science.add a comment
Technology is an amplification of human power. Whether we’re talking about spears and fire or nuclear engergy and genetic engineering, technology increases our ability to influence ourselves and our environment. Thus, the more powerful our technology becomes, the greater the need for us to be aware of the consequences of our actions, and the more important it is that we be aware of the motives for our actions. Wisdom and compassion are in greatest need when our power is greatest.
Although the exponential development of technology in the past hundred years has increased the importance of morality, the fundamental issue is the same: How do we determine, individually and collectively, what is right from wrong? The answer is simple in principle, but often challenging in practice: Our action is bad insofar as it arises from selfishness, greed, or hatred, motivated by a will to act for oneself without regard for the whole. Conversely, our action is good insofar as it arises from selfless love and compassion, motivated by a will to act for the good of the whole. And the goodness will be more effectively manifested the more we have an understanding of the consequences of our actions. Compassion is crippled without wisdom.
The converse is also true: wisdom is crippled without compassion. What we do not care about we ignore, and what we ignore limits our understanding. An open heart and open mind go hand-in-hand. Science and morality are not independent or opposed realms of fact vs. value. Openness is as essential to the development of wisdom and understanding as it is to the development of love and compassion. Closing the mind limits the capacity for manifesting compassion just as closing the heart limits the capacity for knowing.
The implication is clear: the fullest development of science and the fullest development of morality are not opposed, but necessarily imply each other. And it is critical in this period of history that we manifest this integral vision.
Integral Ontology 4 November 2006
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy.9 comments
An ontology is an account of being, of reality. An ontology, in short, determines what is and is not real. For example, a materialist ontology assumes that matter is fundamentally real, while things like consciousness do not have any reality of their own. Consciousness is a mere function of matter (at best) or delusion (at worst). A spiritual ontology, on the other hand, might take the opposite view: consciousness is fundamentally real, while things like matter do not have any reality of their own. Matter is a mere function of consciousness (at best) or delusion (at worst).
How can we integrate such contradictory accounts of reality? This depends, in part, on what we mean by “integrate”. To include both accounts as complementary perspectives in some meta-system is a partial integration at best, and is not so difficult. A genuine integration, though, must go further than mere collection and correlation. It must transcend these apparent contradictions and divisions in a deeper vision of wholeness. The task of true integration is not putting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle back together. It is attaining that seemless vision of the original landscape, before the photograph was taken and cut into pieces.
Any ontology that posits “things” that exist has an implicit metaphysics. Now, in Western philosophy there has been a well known critique of metaphysical realities. But this critique, if applied consistently, applies just as equally to physical realities as to metaphysical realities. Thus, a “post-metaphysical” understanding must also be equally “post-physical”. The sword of criticism cuts both ways. In other words, the physical world is no less speculative than any metaphysical world. This materialist bias can be exposed by sufficiently profound critical insight.
At a more profound level, the very notion of a perspective or view of reality presupposes a structure or filter of some kind, something that passes through this filter, and something that sees the result of that filtering. Insofar as we take this perspectival view as given, we have adopted a “perspectival metaphysics” that is no less a metaphysics than materialism, idealism, or any other metaphysical stance. There is no metaphysics that escapes critical insight. There is no place to stand, no ground beneath our feet.
The deepest root of all ontologies, paradoxically, is no ontology at all. To even talk of an ontology presupposes an ontology. But prior to these accounts of reality is reality before any account of it. The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. Here is revealed the ineffable, trans-ontological reality that, by nature, integrates all accounts of itself because these accounts are itself.
A Genuine Integration of Science and Spirit 4 November 2006
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy, Science.add a comment
The conflict between science and religion in Western culture has its historical roots a few hundred years ago in the division of reality into material and spiritual halves. Science was given authority over the material world while religion retained authority over spiritual and moral issues. Since reality is a single whole, this artificial division of reality has inevitably resulted in various conflicts. In response, there have been numerous attempts at reconciliation and integration. Most of these attempts, however, are inadequate because they do not heal the fundamental schism at a sufficiently deep level. They are not truly integral because they merely present the scientific and spiritual perspectives as complementary or somehow correlated without providing a deeper integral vision from which both are seen as aspects of a single whole. One sign of the incompleteness of such partial integrations is the continued presence of various misconceptions and false dichotomies that are artifacts of the original presupposed division.
One such misconception is the fact/value distinction: science deals with physical facts, while religion deals with spiritual values. Science, we are told, tells us which facts are true, while religion tells us which values are good. This distinction, however, is a false dichotomy. When science makes a statement of fact, this necessarily impacts what is valuable, since we value what is true and genuine and not what is false or fake. Conversely, what we value has an impact on what we determine to be the facts, because there is freedom in how we interpret the facts, and our values color our interpretive choices. And in religion, facts are no less essential than values. God, Buddha nature, Brahman or the Tao are not just the supreme value but also the ultimate fact, reality and truth. And knowledge of this truth brings salvation or liberation. So, there is no real separation of facts and values in either religion or science. Any integration of science and religion is incomplete if it maintains this false dichotomy between the two.
Another misconception of partial integrations of science and religion is that they maintain the false dichotomy that science deals with the outer, material world, while religion deals with the inner, spiritual world. This dichotomy ignores the fact that scientific theories are shaped not only by perceptions of the outer world but also by aesthetic values (e.g., beauty, elegance, simplicity and coherence) that are not objective or outer facts of the world. The ultimate object of scientific knowledge is not just any theory of the external world but an elegant and beautiful theory of the world’s order and harmony. And for the religious contemplative, their concern is not limited to insights into the inner world. The scope of contemplative inquiry includes both inner and outer objects. In fact, the ultimate goal of the spiritual seeker is to recognize that there is no real distinction between inner and outer, self and other. It is thus a distortion of the true nature of both religion and science to maintain that one deals with the internal world of insights and the other with the external world of sensory phenomena.
Once these false dichotomies are clearly seen, a deeper harmony between science and religion is revealed. The Good and True are not genuinely integrated by pasting together pieces of reality that have been segregated into different quadrants of reality. True integration must see them as aspects of the One. At the deepest level of reality, both outer and inner, fact and value, are a single whole. Genuine integration takes place at this deep level, by seeing the true unity prior to division, not by taking false dichotomies for granted then piecing together the fragments.
What is Genuinely Integral? 4 November 2006
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy, Science.add a comment
The contemporary “integral movement” has spawned everything from “integral energy” to “integral naked”. It seems that “integral this” or “integral that” is all the fad, replacing “quantum” as the buzzword of choice. But what do we really mean when we say something is “integral”? The word “integral” originally comes from the Latin, and literally means “intact” or “untouched”. In other words, to be integral is to be unbroken and whole. Similarly, a number that has not been fractured (into a “fraction”) is called a whole number, an “integer”.
Something genuinely integral is primarily a unified whole, and only secondarily composed of parts. A whole is not a mere collection of connected parts, but a unity that can (if we choose) be viewed as having certain distinguishable aspects. A true integration, then, is not the result of merely collecting, categorizing, and correlating different parts. It is a vision that sees deeper than the divisions to a prior purity of wholeness.
The history of physics contains some valuable examples of true integration. Einstein’s unification of matter and energy is an excellent example. According to Einstein’s theory, matter and energy are not distinct substances that are converted into each other, but are different manifestations of a single matter-energy essence. Only with this deeper integral vision is there a real understanding of why or how matter and energy are related or appear to transform into each other: they are actually two aspects of the same thing.
A similar example of integration can be seen in Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. Originally, electricity and magnetism were seen as two distinct force of nature. There were some known correlations between them, and it was acknowledged that both forces needed to be included in a complete picture, but that was not a true integration. The two forces were still viewed as fundamentally distinct. Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, however, changed everything. He provided a genuine integration in which these two forces were recognized as different aspects of a single unified force of electromagnetism. The dichotomy between electric force and magnetic force was recognized to be false, an artifact of our superficial understanding. With the deeper understanding provided by Maxwell’s theory, we can still distinguish electric and magnetic aspects of the electromagnetic force, but we see them as aspects of one force, not as two forces that are being correlated.
An understanding that merely includes different parts of reality, combining and correlating them, is just a first step toward integration. A genuinely integral vision goes deeper, to transcend the very distinction between the parts, to reveal a unity that is truly integral and whole.
Integral Epistemology 4 November 2006
Posted by integralscience in Philosophy.add a comment
Science, as it is normally thought of, is epistemologically limited, i.e., the source of its data is limited to what can be experienced by perception. A more integral science also admits data from conception (e.g., as in mathematical science) and spiritual insight (e.g., as in contemplative science). A true integration of these three experiential modes, however, is not accomplished by merely asserting that all three must be considered. A genuine integration must show how perception, conception, and introception (as Wolff calls the spiritual faculty) are three aspects of deeper whole.
Sufficiently profound insight clearly reveals that perception is never “raw perception” but is always mixed with a conceptual framework. The visual perception of a rock, for example, involves a mental activity that distinguishes the visual field into a portion that corresponds to the rock and a portion that does not. This conceptual aspect of perceptual experience is normally unconscious, and thus gives rise to the mistaken sense that these objects of perception are simply given to us, without any conceptual contribution on our side. Thus they might seem like “raw perception” when they are not.
When the conceptual component of perception is clearly discriminated, and the mind becomes still, then one comes closer to an experience of “raw perception”. There can be awareness of the visual perceptual field, for example, without the mental overlay that distinguishes the “rock” from the rest of the visual field. At an even deeper level, there can be awareness without the mental overlay that distinguishes perceptual phenomena from mental phenomena. A thought arising and passing and a sound arising and passing are not experienced as different kinds of phenomena. They are both simply phenomena, without any inherent distinction between “conceptual” and “perceptual”. It is at this level of depth where the conceptual and perceptual modes of knowledge are truly integrated, genuinely whole. This is the real beginning of a more integral epistemology.
At these deeper levels, there are still subtle conceptual overlays that provide a structure to knowledge. There may still be a subtle sense of a knower or experiencer of a world of phenomena, a sense of a timeless knower of a changing world of form. This subtle dualistic framework is the foundation for all derivative perspectives and ways of knowing. Prior to this, however, is the true trans-perspectival integration.
At an even deeper level, integration with the nondual contemplative mode of knowledge (introception) is also revealed. Introception is an immediate knowledge that is prior to the distinction between subject and object. It is not an experience of any knower, not a perspective from any point of view. It is prior to space and time. It is pure awareness itself, which is a knowingness inherently present everywhere. For example, even though there may be a sense of these words being objects known by a subject, that subject-object overlay is not required by awareness itself. There is still awareness inherently present in the periphery of the visual field surrounding these words, regardless of whether or not objects are distinguished there or not. And the quality of immediate knowingness that is inherent to this awareness is at the basis of all forms of knowledge. The very distinction between perceptual, conceptual, and introceptual forms of knowledge is itself an overlay of this pure, integral awareness. This complete and utterly simple knowingness permeates and is the root all other forms of knowledge. Here is the ground of all knowing, the genuinely integral epistemology.
