The view of the interdependent genesis of the two realms of dualistic manifestation; the realm of ‘physicality’, which is the objective aspect of the dualistic manifestation from the deeper, unitary, implicate (to use a term for levels of non-duality used by physicist David Bohm) dimension of Mindnature, and the subjective realm of individuated ‘mentality’ solves a crucial puzzle that has bothered many physicists and mathematicians. Eugene Wigner, for instance, referred to what he considered to be the ‘unreasonable effectiveness’ of mathematics in describing and explaining the physical world of ‘nature’; he called mathematics a ‘miracle’ and ‘a wonderful gift that we neither understand nor deserve.’ However, if both the realm of mentality and physicality emerge from a deeper level of universal Mindnature then it is surely not such a great mystery that mathematics, itself a product of mind, produces the conceptual patterns generated and followed by the ‘physical’ functioning of reality.
The view of the interdependent genesis of the two realms of dualistic manifestation; the realm of ‘physicality’, which is the objective aspect of the dualistic manifestation from the deeper, unitary, implicate (to use a term for levels of non-duality used by physicist David Bohm) dimension of Mindnature, and the subjective realm of individuated ‘mentality’ solves a crucial puzzle that has bothered many physicists and mathematicians. Eugene Wigner, for instance, referred to what he considered to be the ‘unreasonable effectiveness’ of mathematics in describing and explaining the physical world of ‘nature’; he called mathematics a ‘miracle’ and ‘a wonderful gift that we neither understand nor deserve.’ However, if both the realm of mentality and physicality emerge from a deeper level of universal Mindnature then it is surely not such a great mystery that mathematics, itself a product of mind, produces the conceptual patterns generated and followed by the ‘physical’ functioning of reality.
Is mathematics the only language of science? Is there an equation for the observer? If not, can science ignore observer as unscientific. Was Wigner right when he talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics? Was Godel's incompleteness theorem based on natural mathematics? What is the basis of number theory? If we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems. The physics community blindly accepts rigid, linear ideas about the nature of space, time, dimension, etc. These theories provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better.
In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness. A reality is a situation model (SM). Our universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our universe has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. If we are happy to accept randomness, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program directly-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or directly-fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our universe, every other causality (of our universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective universe, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our universe.
Mathematicians really understand what mathematics is. Theoretical physicists really understand what physics is. No matter how fruitful the interplay between the two subjects, the deep intersection of these two understandings seems to me to be quite modest. Of course, many theoretical physicists know a lot of mathematics. And many mathematicians know a fair amount of theoretical physics. This is very different from a deep understanding of the other subject. There is great advantage in the prospect of each camp increasing its appreciation of the other's goals, desires, methodology, and profound insights. I do not know how to really go about this in either case. However, the book in hand is a good first step for the mathematicians. The method of the text is to explain the meaning of a large number of ideas in theoretical physics via the splendid medium of mathematical communication. This means that there are descriptions of objects in terms of the precise definitions of mathematics. There are clearly defined statements about these objects, expressed as mathematical theorems. Finally, there are logical step-by-step proofs of these statements based on earlier results or precise references. The mathematically sympathetic reader at the graduate level can study this work with pleasure and come away with comprehensible information about many concepts from theoretical physics … quantization, particle, path integral … After closing the book, one has not arrived at the kind of understanding of physics referred to above; but then, maybe, armed with the information provided so elegantly by the authors, the process of infusion, assimilation, and deeper insight based on further rumination and study can begin.
Dualistic interpretations attempt to solve the measurement problem of quantum mechanics by postulating the existence of non-physical minds, and by giving a suitable dynamical equation for how these minds evolve. I consider the relative merits of three extant dualistic interpretations (Albert and Loewer’s single-mind and many-minds interpretations, and Squires’ interpretation), and I defend Squires’ interpretation as preferable to the Albert/Loewer interpretations. I also argue that, for all three of these interpretations, the minds evolve independently of the physical universe, and hence render the physical universe otiose; the interpretations are better viewed as supporting not dualism, but mental monism.
The Buddhist metaphysical conceptual analysis of the nature of reality has always been founded upon the basis of a rigorous employment of scrupulously coherent conceptual analysis, which is in turn based upon an empirical observation of experience in a manner appropriate to the time, although one major difference between the empirical attitude of Western science and philosophy during the age of science and that of Buddhism was the Buddhist development of rigorous techniques of meditation in order to explore the structure and nature of consciousness. In this paper I will use the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti‘s imaginative deconstruction of reality, in the context of quantum theory, to try to answer the question which seems to be posed by quantum theory: Is 'Reality' really real? In our search for the ultimate nature of reality we have to leave behind the 'seeming' appearances of the everyday world, however persuasive the appearance may be, and break through to a more 'ultimate truth' concerning the nature of reality. We shall discover that Dharmakirti's philosophical analysis, alongside other Buddhist insights, which lead to the 'ultimate' realm of 'empty' Mindnature, prefigures modern quantum discoveries.
Two mysteries -loosely connected?The Authors who have suggested a deep connection between the solution of the mind-body problem and the understanding of quantum mechanics are too numerous to list.But what exactly would be the alleged structural fit between these two deeply puzzling theoretical issues?Can a genuine philosophical issue -which by its very nature is conceptual in nature -ultimately be resolved by advances in the empirical sciences?The connection is all too often asserted to lie in the subjects confounding natures, but the mere fact that two problems are of equal impenetrability to the human mind does not imply that there is a profound interdependence between the two.There is however an obvious way in which quantum mechanics might have a bearing on the philosophical mind-body problem: if quantum mechanics implies that for some physical events there is no physical cause, then at least the very strong variants of the so-called "principle of causal closure" of the physical realm lose much of their corroborative underpinning in physics as practiced by real physicists as such, and are thus constrained to the speculative physicalism advanced by metaphysicians.However, unless one assumes a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason, which would exclude chance events in principle, even events supposedly not caused by some physical cause are not immediately thereby caused by some nonphysical cause.Moreover the fact is that not all of the interpretations of quantum mechanics imply indeterministic 'choices' of events: neither the many-worlds interpretation nor a Bohmian hidden variable interpretation assume indeterminism.Even in the most obvious theoretical nexus