Quantum Mechanics – First Three Posts

I have not yet pointed out one key point that I am trying to make with the new section. But the comments by Vilas (vilaskadival) got me thinking about the importance of making that point now. Thanks to Vilas for his comments. I would like everyone to give some thoughts to the following points.

Puredhamma site so far has been all about the mind. The new section on quantum mechanics (QM), on the other hand, is all about matter (above the suddhashtaka stage).

Those two areas operate on very different rules.

Inert matter just follows a set of rules. Newtonian mechanics had a set of rules that were easier to grasp. QM rules (that deal with microscopic particles) are not so easy to grasp, but nonetheless are rules. If one knows the rules, one can calculate what is going to happen in a certain experiment that involves the motion of matter (in the case of QM, only probabilities can be calculated in many cases; but experimental results are always consistent with those calculations or predictions).

But the mind is very different. Each person is very unpredictable. Any given person X has his/her own mind, and no one else can predict how X is going to react to a certain situation. Put it in another way, two people will respond differently under the same conditions. Some responses may look similar, but not the same. The more complex the situation is, the larger the differences in responses.

There are many people who try to tie QM to consciousness. One may offhand think that I would try to do the same. But rules of QM are very different from the rules of the mind. What I am actually trying to do with this new section is to take this “perceived mystical aspect” out of QM. Once one understands some key basic facts, QM is actually easy to grasp. But the mind is unimaginably complex.

Of course, there are some commonalities between the mind and the microscopic realm probed by QM. That involves quantum entanglement. And, I have only emphasized that aspect so far in this new section. But we always need to keep in mind that matter above the suddhashtaka stage and the mind are in TWO DIFFERENT realities (or need to be treated differently). Mind is the root cause of matter.

Maybe I should write a post on this subject, because it is a very important issue. However, I would like us to discuss this in a bit more detail first to see whether what I am saying makes sense or not. It was not easy to explain these details in the paper that we submitted. So, one should really the posts where things are explained in more detail. In particular, the next post will be a critical one.

So, I am glad that Vilas brought up his ideas. Instead of commenting specifically on them, I would like him and others to first think about what I described above.

QM cannot explain ANYTHING about mental aspects. That is what I was trying to say in my previous comment above.

Many people have tried to show that QM can EXPLAIN how consciousness arises from inert matter. That is WRONG, and that is what I am trying to explain in the new section. I am working on a couple of posts to explain why their interpretations are not correct.

This is why we could not get our paper published. Too many physicists think consciousness arise from inert matter in the brain, and that QM can explain how that happens. There are many papers/books written on that premise.

However, when the correct interpretation of QM is understood, one can see the “interconnected-ness” of Nature. That is the importance of QM for us: to build confidence in Buddha Dhamma.

With our new interpretation of QM one can see the interconnectedness of Nature, and that can explain how the Nature “knows” relationships among different people. For example, this is how X will be assigned an anantariya kamma vipaka, if X kills an Arahant. X may not have any idea who he killed.

I have discussed several such examples in those three posts. Even if one is not familiar with QM, one can get the basic idea from the those posts. The paper (given as a pdf) itself could be too technical.

Yes, Vilas. You got it!
What you described is the essence of what happens.
Rupa are created in our minds, of course in minute amounts that we cannot even see. In fact, they are emitted in rays, and that is what some people call “aura”.

Some key facts that we will discuss in detail in the future:

1.Gati get into rupa (via bhuta and maha bhuta stages) via varna, gandha, rasa, oja as well as the four satara maha bhuta (patavi, apo, tejo, vayo) in the suddhashtaka. Remember that suddhashataka means “made of eight”.
2.The energy is embedded via bramana (rotation) and paribramana (spin or rotation around its own axis). A suddhadshtaka created by the mind lasts one-quarter of a maha kappa (age of the Solar system). The Solar system is destroyed when that energy runs out.

3. Each star system dies that way. Each individual start systems (like our Solar system) is destroyed after around 5-10 billion years, and that is a called a “supernova” event.

4. While a normal human generates only insignificant of matter (suddhashtaka), one in jhana samapatti (where javana citta run continuously) one can generate significant amount of matter. This is how yogis with abhinna powers can create material things or convert one thing to another. But that requires a lot of practice.

5. Energy embedded in spin and rotational modes can be seen everywhere: in electron orbital in atoms. Atomic orbitals in molecules. Solar system with its planets undergoing both spin and rotation. Whole galaxies undergoing rotation, etc.

Anyway, that is just a brief summary. And now you can see why most physicists are wrong in saying that consciousness arises via quantum processes in the brain (from inert matter in the brain). It is the other way around: All matter is created via citta (specifically via javana citta). But a full explanation needs lot more details. This new section just lays the foundation.

By the way, our proposed interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on the work of Professor Richard Feynman. The book that mentioned in the posts was based on a series of 4 lectures.

These are simple lectures delivered to non-physicists, and could be useful especially if one does not have access to the book:
QED: Photons — Corpuscles of Light — Richard Feynman (1/4)

Johnny said: “Since matter is created by the mind, how then is matter evolved into lakes and mountains, stars and galaxies, and other physical objects that we see around us? What is the doctrine governing this mechanism and evolution?”

That is a long story, which is condensed in the Agganna Sutta. It will take a long time to correctly describe what is in that sutta. If we start on that now, it will be hard to make sense.

However, what is important now is to just see that QM cannot explain consciousness.
However, the correct interpretation of QM is based on the “interconnectedness” of everything around us (including inert matter), and that is the second item of importance.

Again, I don’t want to distract people from the actual practice. This section is for those who really want to “get to the bottom of it”. But this section is not necessary to attain the Sotapanna stage or any magga phala.

P.S. I just saw the comment by Vilas: “Mind makes matter and this is the right forum to explore within oneselves and get rid of Satkayaditti”
That is true.

Johnny said: “Aggañña Sutta and this video have proven Darwin’s theory of evolution to be false!”

I normally do not like people posting too many youtube videos. But this is a good one.

It is to the point and there are several key contradictions with Darwin’s theory of evolution are pointed out. As it says, “Time does not make impossible things possible”. Indeed!

For those who are really into this subject, there is an in-depth analysis of why evolution theory is wrong in the book, “Signature in the Cell”, by Stephen C. Meyer (2009).

Hello, autumn!

You wrote: “I am not saying that Darwin’s theory of evolution is 100% factual, however both the book you have suggested and the video shared by Johnny can be swiftly discredited with genuine evidence that supports evolution greater than “intelligent design”.

By the book I suggested, I think you mean Feynman’s QED? Of course, that book doesn’t say anything about evolution. That book explains my hypothesis that quantum mechanics is embedded in Buddha Dhamma. See #3 of the post, “Quantum Mechanics – A New Interpretation,” for the paper describing what I mean.

• There are many videos on YouTube on both sides of the argument about Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is just a “theory”; it has not been proven or unproven with “scientific methods.” 
• Those who believe in that theory see enough evidence for themselves. Those who oppose it see enough evidence the other way. 
• The real question is: Do scientific theories currently accepted by scientists provide a coherent worldview? Scientists admit that there are many “holes” in our understanding. Do scientists say that they fully understand the workings of the human body? No. They do not. They don’t even understand how a living cell came into existence; see “Living Cell – How Did the First Cell Come to Existence?“
• On the other hand, those who have comprehended the teachings of Buddha believe that taken as a whole, it does provide a complete understanding. However, it is impossible to convince someone who does not have that background.

You wrote: “I can agree with the fact that the mind can/could influence adaptation in evolution, but that evolution is a well documented, observable and credible theory.”

• I’m afraid I have to disagree. There is a consensus that it is the best theory that the scientists have. But there is never a “conclusive proof.”
• If you read the book “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer, there are ample scientific arguments against the “theory of evolution.” I am aware that he is a fundamentalist Christian. Of course, I don’t agree with his explanation that a Creator created all life. But that does not change the facts he presents. My post above points out that modern science cannot even explain how the living cell could have “evolved.” Any person with expertise in bioscience will admit that they start building their theories starting with the living cell; they have no idea how it came into existence.

Regarding the comments of “A friend in dhamma” you quoted: I don’t think he has a good understanding of Buddha Dhamma. 

• The following part of his comment tells me that he does not understand the “Agganna Sutta” where the Buddha explains how life evolves on the Earth: ” there are some missing puzzles if we take for example the “light body Brahmas” ate the earth and become humans..”
• I have written an introduction to the Agganna Sutta: “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)” but it will take many such posts to discuss that deep sutta and to provide a decent explanation. Buddha Dhamma is more profound than quantum mechanics or any other branch of modern science.

If someone can understand the Agganna Sutta, then it will become evident that the “de-evolution process” (starting with “humans with Brahma-like” subtle bodies) cannot be reversed. What happens is that the Earth (Solar system and a cluster of other star systems close-by) will be destroyed in a supernova explosion at some point (scientists do agree on that. ) What they don’t know is that those start systems will be re-formed many billions of years after that. It is a cyclic process that has no beginning or end. My post provides some basic concepts/steps involved.

Finally, you wrote: “..I’m struggling a little bit with blind faith aspects.”

• If one can understand the fundamentals of Buddha’s worldview, one will realize that there is nothing to be taken on “blind faith.” In contrast, scientific theories are just that” “theories,” and scientists readily admit to it. Over the years, scientific theories have been revised repeatedly to match new observations; yet, Buddha Dhamma remains the same: “Dhamma and Science – Introduction.” By Buddha Dhamma, I mean the 57 books in the Tipitaka written 2000 years ago: “Preservation of the Buddha Dhamma.”
• I have discussed these issues in more detail in a series of posts: “Origin of Life.” There is no need to repeat those explanations. If you can read them and have questions, that is probably the best way to have a productive discussion.