Past Posts Pulldown Menu

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Quantum Spirituality #2

Here are some definitions/etymologies before I start blabbering:


Quantum - from the Latin of the same spelling for "How Great" (could be a question, "how much?" or exclamation, "how great!!" or in speaking of currency (quanti) "how much does it cost?" Introduced by Mark Planck in 1900, popularized by Einstein.
1 a : QUANTITY, AMOUNT b : PORTION, PART c : gross quantity : BULK
2 a : any of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided b : any of the small subdivisions of a quantized physical magnitude (as magnetic moment)

Spirituality - from the Latin "Spiritus" for inhalation, breathing, spirit, pride or confidence, spirits (as in, "he was in high spirits")
1 : something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
3 : sensitivity or attachment to religious values
4 : the quality or state of being spiritual

Mysticism - from the Greek "Mystikos" meaning the arcane, secret, occult, hidden. "Mystes" for "One who has been initiated".
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

Quantum Mysticism
: Margaret Wertheim is the most documented of popularizers of this phrase. New Agers finding spiritual meaning in Science, sometimes bending the rules to suit their own aims. The Kaballah, Hinduism, Tarot, and several other religions (yes Tarot is a religion in my humbly vain opinion) are proposed to be metaphors for modern day Physics of all kinds. I have to agree that they all have multi-faceted interpretations, which could indeed be rudimentary (at least) in explaining certain higher concepts than meets the eye.

Quantum Mind - I haven't been able to find who coined this term.. let me know if any of you find it.

Now, some concepts....

To save time, I'm going to copy/paste one from Wikipedia, which is one of if not my favorite site of the internet. So much info.

Quantum Entanglement: "is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems.
"For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. Quantum entanglement does not enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light." This is one of the crazy behaviors in Quantum Mechanics. One that bothers many scientists, and excites many due to the possibilities. Imagine being able to use that in communications? Forget radio signals or fiber optics.. they'll be the dog's dinner if you can harness this kind of technology. The inventor would be filthy rich. Trump who? Forget webcams baby, I'm talking to you via Atomic twins ;)

Schrodinger's Cat
is a Quantum mechanics paradox. (Click on the title to read the article at Wikipedia, for the full article.) Read it! Basically, the experiment talks about the realms of the macro and microscopic meeting. Where do they meet? Is it a clear boundary? Why is the question is so important and ingenious? Well, on the atomic level, physics allegedly has different rules than the macroscopic - so where do the rules begin for one, and end for the other??

These two laws (quantum mechanics and general relativity) are at odds with each other, and yet they "work" in their respective worlds. Quantum Mechanics adds up in the microscopic, on atoms, electrons, quarks, and further down that funnel of the gargatuanly tiny: General Relativity adds up in the macroscopic, on planets, galaxies, and local galactic groups.. etc all the way up that mountain of the mind shrinkingly large. Which is right? Are they both right, and if so, how? Again, thinking of said kitty cat, where do they end and where do they begin? What happens in that No-Man's-Land/Neutral Zone? Or should I say the Twilight Zone.. lol.

Through these thoughts, these contemplations, I am obviously not qualified to honestly be able to think them through. I'd love to be able to. I look forward to getting a bit better and not having to stop every 10 minutes to wait for the fibro fog to clear up - or having to rest my muscles. But there's still some life in my sweet brain, and I intend to keep it that way.

I find that thinking these paradoxical matters over, thinking what lays in waiting for us to discovery, gives me hope and grows the grey matter a little. Just reading about it makes me feel fresher in the brain.

So how does this tie into spirituality? Okay, well in many ways. So many ways this will be an ongoing post collection. I've tagged it "Quantum Spirituality Ramble" for anyone who's interested in following it.

First of all, reading through articles, books, websites, listening to documentaries and podcasts, etc - I feel, and I'm sure you will too, as though there are infinite possibilities. I'm not just talking about the dimensional theory that everything that can happen does happen in different dimensions.. I'm talking about the feeling that comes from understanding how little we know. And the stuff we do know, well, some of it is really wild and out there. Not many of us have access to the genius knowledge that some of these people can understand, not me (at least not yet, I'm always trying to understand an iota here and there, to combine into some kind of layman's knowledge when I'm 89 years old) . And even those who do, I'm sure most of the wisest say they don't know much. Theories upon theories.

So what's to say what's impossible? Are ghosts impossible because everyone in your family says so? Or that scientist on the documentary you've just watched? Are psychics impossible because some group of dubious scientists says it's impossible. Many shows and books I've read on skeptical scientists proving psychics wrong have horrible control groups, horrible tests, and an even more horrible bias.

I'm not saying it's 100% positively true, but I've seen enough to make myself doubt more that it's not true.

I'm also displeased with the other side of the coin, who says psychics are 100% real, and ghosts are 100% real in the traditional meaning of both words. Why? Well, truly, beyond hard science like math and other sciences that "Add up" all the time, we don't know. Mediums like myself could be extremely tapped into a nonlinear space-time, and not talking to ghosts but actually sensing the echoes that flip through time or even dimensions. Other dimensions are believed to exist, taken as a given, by many scientists. Maybe I do not speak to ghosts, but the intersection of another time or dimension. Maybe that is how I see others' futures. Perhaps it's a part of our brains we don't yet understand, a receptive organ we haven't yet identified as such. Deja-Vu could be a spasm of said organ. And like language, perhaps if we do not use it at the appropriate formative age, we lose the ability to fully use it. Maybe something more is happening, something larger.

Perhaps on the twilight zone level between the micro and the macro resides that dimensional rift?

None of these thoughts, probably, are original. I have thought them out myself, yes, but I am sure many people have already thought this way. Therein comes Quantum Mysticism. Where I say maybe, some (not all Quantum Mystics, I'm talking about a portion of that demographic) people say "certainly." So some silly scientist say that mediums have an extra organ to feel out alternate dimensions. They don't need proof, they know. I hate that!! They really put a kink in the real spiritualists.

Spirituality isn't about knowing, it's about feeling and wondering and experiencing things without proof. Spirituality then leads to inspiration to delve into these matters. Spirituality itself means inspiration, and inspiration is breathing - breathing in the matter and antimatter of the universe - and becoming one with all. It's not religion, it's searching and believing in unstructured areas, untrodden paths. It's being blind and feeling out the furniture in a never ending room, the room being our universe. We don't know for sure what's there, but we can feel out boundaries, textures, temperature, etc.. and each of us might sense furniture in different ways.

Science is the light, but right now we only have a candle in the center and a little to the left of the room. One day we might have a candelabra lit, or hopefully a spotlight will blaze one day before our demise.. wouldn't that be grand? Scientists feel out in their blindness a little bit, but they would rather use the candle and get all the information about that small area. I like that approach, but I prefer to feel out and deduce what I can.. and then ask the scientist what they've learned. Perhaps spiritualists can inspire them with theories, to get them to move their candle slightly to the right, and down a bit.

Just the fact that I don't know what lurks in the room excites me. I want to freely explore, and take notes. I want to talk to others, like I am now, and share with them my thoughts. Compare notes.

Why are we in this room? How big is it? Why isn't there more light? What do we keep bumping into three steps from the candle?

Do you like to stare into the lit part of the room, or glare into the darkness?
Does the light or dark frighten you more?

See you next post. Time for me to get back to bed!

- Thanks to the online Etymology Dictionary, and my handy dandy Latin-English dictionary, as well as Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary.

This post and all posts are (c) Copyright 2006 Emilie L.

No comments: