Buddhist quantum theory?

To measure is an act of consciousness by which it compares various extended things, ultimately, with itself.  By analogy, using a tape measure a piece of timber is compared with units of measure.  No matter how small we cut the timber it can be measured.  Even down to a milligram of fiber, we can still measure the timber.  

In order to measure anything, the units of measure must always be finer than what is measured.  Moreover, as the measure becomes increasingly smaller it approaches, also, the range of consciousness which can be thought of as zero.  Thus, we approach a limit to our measure where the measure, so to speak, instantly disappears into the immeasurable, that is, consciousness itself, or the same, pure Mind.  This also means that consciousness has no actual dependence on measurement or the things measured.  It transcends all measurement, in other words.

But now we ask, can consciousness or mind know itself, directly?  Well, in a way yes—but it cannot measure itself which implies a distinction between itself and something measured or determinate.  In truth, we are the very immediacy of consciousness or absolute Mind.  What keeps us, as pure consciousness, from knowing our self, directly, is the confusion of a mind-phenomenalization (something to be measured) with pure consciousness or Mind, itself. More to the point, this implies that, out of habit, we expect consciousness, itself, to be something measurable.  It is not.

Switching gears, what seems to be happening these days in Quantum physics is the very notion of absolute measure is falling by the wayside because some physicists are coming to the conclusion, in so many words, that the universe is Mind-only (science is becoming Buddhist!) which means it exists yet does not actually exist (this is the notion of illusion or mâyâ).  The implications of this are far reaching. 

 

Comments

[Bob Morris]

I read up on Schopenhauer a little - the first western Philosopher well versed in Hindu and Buddhist texts but out of touch with the science of his day. See http://www.friesian.com/arthur.htm
"Schopenhauer did not understand the new physics of light and electricity that had been developed by Thomas Young (1773-1829) and Michael Faraday (1791-1867). He disparaged the wave theory of light, which Young had definitively established, as a "crude materialism," and "mechanical, Democritean, ponderous, and truly clumsy" [Dover, p. 123]. Unfortunately, Schopenhauer does not seem to have understood the evidence for Young's discoveries about light, or even for Newton's -- he still clung to Goethe's clever but clueless theory of colors."
Sounds vaguely familiar...

[fofoo]

It´s been a while since I read Schopenhauer, but from what I remember he put the will as reason for the existance of the universe (If his "will" reflects the buddhist karma can be debated)

Although somewhat an Idealist (He opens his main work, "the world as will an representation", with "Die Welt ist meine Vorstellung"(the world is my representation)", he is not in agreement with the German Idealists since he says that all things are manifestations of the (blind) will (to live)

[Matt]

Hegel would agree, yes. You might also look at Schopenhauer and/or Kant

[fofoo]

"mind-only" reminds me of Hegel and absolute Idealism. For Hegel, the mind is not only primary but the only thing that is existing, matter being merely a specific form of spirit/mind.