NON-DUALITY
![Picture](/uploads/4/5/1/6/4516117/published/charles-antoine-coypel-the-cheerful-democritus.jpg?1639524039)
"I would rather discover a single cause than become king of the Persians."
- Democritus
Democritus was an ancient Greek philosopher that postulated that all natural phenomena arise from complicated interactions between few kinds of tiny "atoms" whizzing around in mostly empty space.
This view gets closer to the modern scientific worldview than anything else in antiquity. And like our modern theories he recognized a dilemma: How could sense experiences (called "qualia" in modern day consciousness research) be reduced to the motions of atoms?
He expressed this conundrum in the form of a dialogue between the Intellect and Sense:
Intellect: By convention there is sweetness, by convention bitterness, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color, but in reality there are only atoms and the void.
Senses: Foolish Intellect! Do you seek to overthrow us, while it is from us that you take your evidence?
- Democritus
Democritus was an ancient Greek philosopher that postulated that all natural phenomena arise from complicated interactions between few kinds of tiny "atoms" whizzing around in mostly empty space.
This view gets closer to the modern scientific worldview than anything else in antiquity. And like our modern theories he recognized a dilemma: How could sense experiences (called "qualia" in modern day consciousness research) be reduced to the motions of atoms?
He expressed this conundrum in the form of a dialogue between the Intellect and Sense:
Intellect: By convention there is sweetness, by convention bitterness, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color, but in reality there are only atoms and the void.
Senses: Foolish Intellect! Do you seek to overthrow us, while it is from us that you take your evidence?
So on the one hand, Democritus thought the whole universe is composed of atoms in a void, constantly moving around according to determinate and understandable laws. These atoms can hit each other and bounce off, or they can stick together to make bigger things. They can have different sizes, weights, and shapes.
On the other hand, Democritus says that properties like color and taste are not intrinsic to atoms, but instead emerge out of the interactions of many atoms, not unlike ideas emergence in Chaos and systems theories.
For if the atoms that made up the ocean were "intrinsically blue," then how could they form the white froth on the waves?
Now this is 400 BCE! Not bad!
This one sentence of Democritus, "By convention there is sweetness, by convention bitterness, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color, but in reality there are only atoms and the void", puts Democritus shoulder to should with Plato, Aristotle or any ancient philosopher you can name. It would be hard to give a better one-sentence summary of the entire scientific worldview that would develop 2000 years later beginning mainly with Isaac Newton.
But the dialogue doesn't stop there, "Foolish Intellect! Do you seek to overthrow us, while it is from us that you take your evidence?" Schrodinger himself was interested in this dialogue and published in his excellent book, What is life? With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical sketches.
Why would Schrodinger be interested in this dialogue? Well it is a debate that is at the heart of quantum mechanics between the senses of observation or measurement, and the quantum atoms in the void. When we add quantum mechanics, it becomes (as we'll see), atoms in the void in a superposition of all possible states until measured. So Democritus was even more ahead of his time then he could have ever fathomed.
It is this dilemma, the world of quantum atoms in the void (Objective) and the senses of measurement (Subjective), that a Non-duality perspective applied to quantum mechanics resolves in a Nondual embrace of both sides.
On the other hand, Democritus says that properties like color and taste are not intrinsic to atoms, but instead emerge out of the interactions of many atoms, not unlike ideas emergence in Chaos and systems theories.
For if the atoms that made up the ocean were "intrinsically blue," then how could they form the white froth on the waves?
Now this is 400 BCE! Not bad!
This one sentence of Democritus, "By convention there is sweetness, by convention bitterness, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color, but in reality there are only atoms and the void", puts Democritus shoulder to should with Plato, Aristotle or any ancient philosopher you can name. It would be hard to give a better one-sentence summary of the entire scientific worldview that would develop 2000 years later beginning mainly with Isaac Newton.
But the dialogue doesn't stop there, "Foolish Intellect! Do you seek to overthrow us, while it is from us that you take your evidence?" Schrodinger himself was interested in this dialogue and published in his excellent book, What is life? With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical sketches.
Why would Schrodinger be interested in this dialogue? Well it is a debate that is at the heart of quantum mechanics between the senses of observation or measurement, and the quantum atoms in the void. When we add quantum mechanics, it becomes (as we'll see), atoms in the void in a superposition of all possible states until measured. So Democritus was even more ahead of his time then he could have ever fathomed.
It is this dilemma, the world of quantum atoms in the void (Objective) and the senses of measurement (Subjective), that a Non-duality perspective applied to quantum mechanics resolves in a Nondual embrace of both sides.
![Picture](/uploads/4/5/1/6/4516117/editor/st-small-507x507-pad-600x600-f8f8f8_1.jpg?250)
Essence of Quantum Mechanics
For any isolated region of the universe that you want to consider, quantum mechanics describes the evolution in time of the state of that region which we represent as a linear combination - a superposition - of all possible configurations of elementary particles in that region. So, this is a bizzare picture of reality, where a given particle is not here, not there, but in a sort of weighted statistical sum over all the places it could be. But it works! It does a pretty good job at explaining the "atoms and the void" Democritus talked about.
What's the problem? Well if you take quantum mechanics seriously, you yourself ought to be in a superposition of different places at once. After all you are made of elementary particles too, right? In particular, suppose you measure a particle that's in a superposition of two locations, A and B.
For any isolated region of the universe that you want to consider, quantum mechanics describes the evolution in time of the state of that region which we represent as a linear combination - a superposition - of all possible configurations of elementary particles in that region. So, this is a bizzare picture of reality, where a given particle is not here, not there, but in a sort of weighted statistical sum over all the places it could be. But it works! It does a pretty good job at explaining the "atoms and the void" Democritus talked about.
What's the problem? Well if you take quantum mechanics seriously, you yourself ought to be in a superposition of different places at once. After all you are made of elementary particles too, right? In particular, suppose you measure a particle that's in a superposition of two locations, A and B.
![Picture](/uploads/4/5/1/6/4516117/eyjidwnrzxqioijjb250zw50lmhzd3n0yxrpyy5jb20ilcjrzxkioijnawzcl3f1yw50dw0tc3vpy2lkzs05lmdpziisimvkaxrzijp7injlc2l6zsi6eyj3awr0aci6mjkwfx19-orig_orig.gif)
Then the most naive straightforward reading of quantum mechanics would predict that the universe split into two branches: one where the Particle is at A, and you see it at A, one where the particle is at B and you see it at B! So what do you think: do you split into several copies of yourself every time you look at something? I don't feel like I do!
But how could you even make predictions if this crazy theory of quantum mechanics essentially says that everything that could happen does?
Well, the thing I have not told you yet, is that there's a separate rule for what happens when you make a measurement: a rule that is 'tacked on' externally to the equations themselves.
That rule says, essentially, that the act of looking at a particle forces it to make up its mind about where it wants to be, and that the particle makes its choice probabilistically. And this rule tells you exactly how to calculate the probabilities. And of course, Quantum mechanics, including this measurement procedure is spectacularly well confirmed!
But here is the problem for scientists: How are we supposed to know when to apply this measurement rule and when not to? What counts as measurement anyway? The laws of physics are supposed to be universal, right? But it turns out there is no separate objective universe apart and separate from our sensory observations UNTIL we look and measure it! We are literally creating objectivity with observations. The atoms in the void only manifest themselves as an actuality in the presence of the Senses.
From a physicist point of view, it would be much cleaner to do away with this "measurement" business altogether. Then we could say in a more sophisticated update of Democritus: there's nothing but atoms and the void, evolving in quantum superposition.
But wait, if we're not here making nosy measurements, and wrecking the pristine beauty of quantum mechanics, then how did "we" ever get the evidence in the first place that quantum mechanics is true? How did we ever come to believe in this theory that seems so uncomfortable with the fact of our own existence?
So quantum mechanics presents us with the modern version of the Democritus dilemma, and physicists and philosophers have been arguing about it for about 100 years now.
There are many intrepretations of Quantum mechanics that really boil down to where they come down of the "putting yourself in coherent superposition issue.
**That is how can our senses that depend on the atoms and the void, learn about the atoms and the void, if the atoms and the void only exist in reality through our senses? It is a chicken and egg dilemma of the highest order.
But how could you even make predictions if this crazy theory of quantum mechanics essentially says that everything that could happen does?
Well, the thing I have not told you yet, is that there's a separate rule for what happens when you make a measurement: a rule that is 'tacked on' externally to the equations themselves.
That rule says, essentially, that the act of looking at a particle forces it to make up its mind about where it wants to be, and that the particle makes its choice probabilistically. And this rule tells you exactly how to calculate the probabilities. And of course, Quantum mechanics, including this measurement procedure is spectacularly well confirmed!
But here is the problem for scientists: How are we supposed to know when to apply this measurement rule and when not to? What counts as measurement anyway? The laws of physics are supposed to be universal, right? But it turns out there is no separate objective universe apart and separate from our sensory observations UNTIL we look and measure it! We are literally creating objectivity with observations. The atoms in the void only manifest themselves as an actuality in the presence of the Senses.
From a physicist point of view, it would be much cleaner to do away with this "measurement" business altogether. Then we could say in a more sophisticated update of Democritus: there's nothing but atoms and the void, evolving in quantum superposition.
But wait, if we're not here making nosy measurements, and wrecking the pristine beauty of quantum mechanics, then how did "we" ever get the evidence in the first place that quantum mechanics is true? How did we ever come to believe in this theory that seems so uncomfortable with the fact of our own existence?
So quantum mechanics presents us with the modern version of the Democritus dilemma, and physicists and philosophers have been arguing about it for about 100 years now.
There are many intrepretations of Quantum mechanics that really boil down to where they come down of the "putting yourself in coherent superposition issue.
**That is how can our senses that depend on the atoms and the void, learn about the atoms and the void, if the atoms and the void only exist in reality through our senses? It is a chicken and egg dilemma of the highest order.
On the one hand, we've got interpretations that enthusiastically sweep the issue under the rug: Copenhagen and its Bayesian and epistemic grandchildren. In these interpretations, you've got your quantum system, you've got your measuring device, and there's a line between them. Sure, the line can shift from one experiment to the next, but for any given experiment, it's gotta be somewhere. In principle you can even imagine putting other people on the quantum side (Wigner's friends), but You Yourself (the one making the observation or measurement) are always on the classical side. Why? Beacause a quantum state is just a representation of your knowledge - and you, by definition of the Copenhagen interpretation are a classical being.
But what if you want to apply quantum mechanics to the whole universe, including yourself? The answer in these interpretations is you simply don't ask that kind of question.
On the other side, we've got the interpretations that do try in different ways to make sense of putting yourself in superposition: many worlds, Bohmuan mechanics, etc.
But if human beings were regularly put into superposition, then the whole business of drawing a line between classical observers and the rest of the universe would become untenable.
But alright - human brains are wet, goopy, sloppy things, and maybe we won't be able to maintain them in coherent superposition. So what's the next best thing? Well we could try to put a computer in superposition, which could push the line further up between quantum and classical.
LASERS - Pump energy to create quantum coherence... Ordered lattice/crystal - Room temperature. Warm and open system
Quantum Biology is more like a laser!
Usually need to be very cold and isolated with quantum superpositions.
---
In between - Like Using a dim flashlight on double slit... Maintain quantum effects but classical collapse too (only if shooting a large number of electrons).
Non-duality is becoming more quantum-like. There is still a physical body, but more and more of it becomes quantum, esp brain.
Functional memory vs psychological memory.
But what if you want to apply quantum mechanics to the whole universe, including yourself? The answer in these interpretations is you simply don't ask that kind of question.
On the other side, we've got the interpretations that do try in different ways to make sense of putting yourself in superposition: many worlds, Bohmuan mechanics, etc.
But if human beings were regularly put into superposition, then the whole business of drawing a line between classical observers and the rest of the universe would become untenable.
But alright - human brains are wet, goopy, sloppy things, and maybe we won't be able to maintain them in coherent superposition. So what's the next best thing? Well we could try to put a computer in superposition, which could push the line further up between quantum and classical.
LASERS - Pump energy to create quantum coherence... Ordered lattice/crystal - Room temperature. Warm and open system
Quantum Biology is more like a laser!
Usually need to be very cold and isolated with quantum superpositions.
---
In between - Like Using a dim flashlight on double slit... Maintain quantum effects but classical collapse too (only if shooting a large number of electrons).
Non-duality is becoming more quantum-like. There is still a physical body, but more and more of it becomes quantum, esp brain.
Functional memory vs psychological memory.