A Cryptarian’s perspective of Quantum Mechanics, Religion, and Zen.

QM assumes a non deterministic multiverse. (A “new” term I’m going to have to use to provide a floor.)

QM, creates the need for a new floor since they’ve taken a word which previously meant everything (universe) and made it plural, to confuse the issue. This is somewhat underhanded since they will no doubt liken this creation to the atom issue. Atom means uncuttable, but we did indeed cut atoms, and had to name the parts, still looking for that uncutable fundamental particle. This change in terminology was demanded by hard physical evidence that demanded a change in perspective. QM is not like this at all. Its not mechanistic at all in fact. It is interspersed with "theory" that amounts to faith.

Now, they say there are multiple universes. Whereas I take except to this on a semantic level. If this situation were to exist then the proper way to refer to it in my opinion would be to site our universe and it's physics as the "observable universe" and everything out side of it as the "unobservable universe".

Why do they not do this you may ask? Because they do not wish to announce that QM is effectively a new mysticism, not even a developed religion. I don’t have a problem with this directly. I just dislike the inherent deception and obfuscation.

Why do I say it’s a new religion? Because other groups of people have been purporting to have information from outside the observable universe for the duration of our existence. And arriving at a conception of the unobservable is the same whether it is the result of hallucinogenic plants, brain quirks, or esoteric arcane maths.

What if I were to refer to the totally of multiple universes physics and logics as a universe? Would there suddenly be extra dimensions and universes outside this new one simply because I’ve renamed it?

If the doctrine of observation direct affecting the nature of reality is to be believe then the answer amazingly becomes yes.

While I find this idea appealing and beautiful, I also find it completely fantastic. Given this infinity of options, one could argue that everything (has+is+will) occurs. And further it would mean that imagining it, (being a non deterministic collapsing of probability waves forms) would simultaneously be our “fault” and real. Thus, every horrible thing you’ve ever even imagined you caused to happen somewhere.

That’s dreadfully close to sinful thoughts, or thought-crime, to me.

Since these external universes are admittedly unobservable, then they must not be connected to our universe, either that or they are connected but are simply unobservable from this direction/position.

So which is it? They are connected and there and observable and thus not really external universes at all but merely difficult to observes portions of ours.

Or they are not connected, and are thus totally unobservable with differing law of physics (and thus presumably logic) making any inference about them at a distance a matter of faith.

I see turtles all the way down, only its “universes” instead of turtles and “out” instead of down.

Occam’s razor cuts this to pieces as easily as it does any other religious cosmology. QM is just as much an infantile scientific reaction as claiming an omnipotent god is.

Science toddler: “We don’t need your god to explain existence we have Universes all the way out!”

Religion toddler: “Yea well my god can kick your god’s ass, he’s all powerful!”



The adult perspective, which I’ve called Cryptarianism, since no one else seems to want to name this particular conflux of ideas, (beyond the political sphere) is that religion and science answer fundamentally different questions.

QM is to science as Creationism is to Religion. Both represent each respect field attempting to answer a question outside of their bounds. Religion answers why, which is deeply subjective and does not need evidence, Science answer how which is deeply objective and requires no feeling.

Obviously how and why are question one can ask about the same universe, but this does not mean that how and why will ever yield the same answers. Both camps assume an absolute logic, but neither camp is willing to carry that logic to its absolutely extreme end no matter how unavoidable.

The simple fact that science rejects is, reality existing at all is a mystical event, and thus some degree of mysticism is required if you intend to be aware.

The simple fact that religion rejects is that this existence given its obvious mystical origins can be “understood” in any meaningful sense based on observation and experimentation, but obviously it can, just not the reasons for it. The reason is and always will be a matter of faith.

The inescapable logical conclusion that would simply tear society apart if it were applied to the ideological foundations of human perception and society is that free will simply cannot exist, there is no difference between living and dead matter, separation of any sort is an illusion, and all “something” is composed of “nothing”.

This may sound familiar. Zen? The Zen perspective attempts to incorporate elements of both, while denouncing the terminology, saying that some things are unknowable unspeakable timeless, etc. A math based on zeros. Much like reality. But Zen still ends up being one or the other.

Zen Toddler: Reality can be observed and understood.

Science Toddler: See I told ya.

Religious Toddler: But what about mysticism?

Zen Toddler: Reality cannot be observed and understood.

Sci/Reg Toddlers: Which is it?

Zen Toddler: Mu.

A lack of answer is not an answer.

Zen is the equivalent of people saying the question cannot be answered as a sufficient answer in and of itself, at which point they begin to meditate, which is simply starving their brains of fuel until this non answer is satisfactory.

There are two ways of looking at the multiverse from a search for origins perspective. Either it is non causal and caused itself and that’s a sufficient answer which is hard to accept given the tendency to “view” that concept from a mental “outside” and then effectively looking around and saying “well yea but what does THAT exist in the “first place”. As humans it’s hard to realize there may be no “first place”.

The second way is seeing reality as a whole and them seeing whatever is outside it as making it and enforcing the rules, which is the perspective I prefer, but the point is both are true. The only thing that changes is your perception of it.

Grass is always greener.