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.

American Buddha

Technically, I must call myself a Buddha.

No, I'm serious.

If I'm right generally and I obviously think I am right, then... Yes, I actually do consider myself a Buddha. I make this admission publicly to invite criticism and debate, or as the scientists would put it, public oversight or peer review.

This does not mean I think myself a God, or that I'm some new age mystic sitting cross legged with incense burning in the back ground thinking I was Genghis Khan or Ramses II in a past life. Or that i have some masochistic compulsion to deny myself good food sex and comfy sleep wear. What it does mean is explained below, but first a little citation.

According to the Eastern Religion wiki...

Buddhism teaches that someone who becomes enlightened without instruction is a Buddha The primary goal of Buddhism is the liberation of the practitioner from samsara.

Now, Samsara, according to its wiki ...

...refers to the cycle of reincarnation or rebirth in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and other related religions.

The karmic balance at the time of death is inherited via the state at which a person is reborn. Through an undetermined amount of lives one can spiral upwards to become one of the gods. As a deity, one exercises divine powers until the good merit is exhausted. If one lives in evil ways, one is reborn as an animal.

Put more specifically in the Buddhism wiki...

In Theravada Buddhism, any person who has awakened from the "sleep of ignorance" (by directly realizing the true nature of reality), without instruction, and who has reached the end of the compulsive cycle of rebirths (as human, animal, ghost, etc.) after numerous lifetimes of spiritual striving, and who teaches this Path to Awakening to others is called a Buddha.

So, the requirements and how I meet them are as follows. Obviously the Dali Lama would object to my claim given my distaste for dogma and chanting, but I do believe that reality teaches the same lessons over and over, and I do tend to repeat myself, but there is a subtle difference.

Anyway.

1. Directly realizing the true nature of reality, enlightenment.

2. Who has reached the end of the compulsive cycle of rebirths or liberation of the practitioner from samsara.

3. After numerous lifetimes of spiritual striving.

4. Who teaches this Path to Awakening to others.

Directly realizing the true nature of reality, enlightenment.

Reality is a paradox, an illusion of separateness, a nothing with form. I mean each of these literally. Reality is a self reference, a construct apparently built from the outside with no outside, holding itself up by attaching to itself, falling without moving towards nowhere, never and always. It exists relative to that which cannot exist to provide reference, namely non-existence. Reality contains statements which are both true and unprovable, so if we prove everything, then reality becomes incomplete. You've heard that before but not applied to reality as whole in this context. To find reality one must blend the how and the why, the science and the religion, the truth and the fact, these things need not fight any more than yin yang. They are different.

An illusion of separateness, there is no barrier between you an Andromeda There is a gradient of matter energy space time gravity etc between you and there. It is as much a part of you as your finger or your memories. It physically is you. The only way it cannot me is with an imaginary line defined by definition. What is, “is”? Ok, so your flesh stops at your skin, but what makes the air just above your skin any less yours? We are all one organism/reality We are built on the physical laws, there is no fundamental difference between living and dead matter. We are one. There is only one path and you are taking it. Choice is an illusion along with fear, guilt, rage, control, virtue, suffering. These are consequences of deception, of lies based on separateness and division. There is no judge. You are what you are, or put more Zen like.

You are

I figured all of this out by myself, and if I'm right, well, you judge for yourself the consequences. I was not given it by rote.

Who has reached the end of the compulsive cycle of rebirths or liberation of the practitioner from samsara. Now I can't speak to the soul, but if reality has will, clearly it wants me to ignore the matter, else it would provide evidence. But I do consider death and pain my chief enemies. And I will kill them or die trying. I can't speak to the progress of my soul with any objective conviction. But I do not plan to die. I quite seriously live my life as if I will life for the next trillion years so long as I take moderate care of myself, keep an open mind, adapt and expand myself when required, and avoid fear. The fight against death goes well. Each day steps are made towards any of the numerous ways we can annihilate death as we know it. This is actually the easiest one and only takes a bit of luck. I really do plan and expect to live for centuries more, and from there, who knows. If all goes well I'll never have need or desire to end my existence.

After numerous lifetimes of spiritual striving. The material that makes up your body changes from year to year decades to decade. You are not who you were when you were 5, that person is your ancestor. So how old are you? When did that person die? Never? Instantly? Depends on how you look at it. But clearly multiple lives are there metaphorically in some ways, literally in others. I've spent all mine asking questions and answering them searching for the truth, and the fact. I think I have it, because in typical paradoxical fashion I now know conclusively that as I am I cannot know. You've heard that before as well.

Who teaches this Path to Awakening to others. My whole adult life has been spent, trying to get the nature of reality recognized. I've always felt it was my duty to share the world as I see it with others. It's been the driving force of my life to bring myself closer to the fellows of my species by sharing with them these truths. Self expression is a scared and important thing, especially on matters of death, pain, survival, and pleasure.

The temptation is there to play off your ego, to ask if any of this sounds familiar, to ask if you are scoffing and saying to yourself “hell this could be anyone”, and try to make you feel like a Buddha also, claim that was my point, imply that we are all there, hide what I think I am. I wish that were true, but I know it probably isn't. While I know I'm not alone, I also know I'm rare.

Many people are simply handed their world view and accept them without question. Many people are robots effectively. Now they have no more choice in this matter than I had. It is not for us to control. But again paradoxically this gives us even greater responsibility. I know I'm just following orders but that does not absolve me. I still am defined by what I do, what I think, what I feel. I am.

So all things considered. Yes, I know I'm right. I know I have the solution, I know I see it. I know I know. I know nothing, so I know everything's nature.

Yea, call it a delusion of grandeur if you must but If I'm to be honest I Must say that yes i think of myself as a Buddha.