• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

The Quantum Theory of Reincarnation

Cryscat

Cryscat

Senior Member
The Quantum Theory of Reincarnation by the late Roger Ebert (2009)

"Is reincarnation possible from a scientific, rationalist point of view? For my purposes today I'm going to argue that it is. We will never, however, be aware of it, and indeed "we," as we like to think of ourselves, will be completely out of the picture. I'm going to approach the problem from the point of view of quantum mechanics--a field about which I understand almost nothing, although discussing it permits others to assume I have gone mad."

Read the whole article here:
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/the-quantum-theory-of-reincarnation

A lot of food for thought.
 
That was an interesting seed. I especially enjoyed his sense of humor. I'm looking forward to finding out what ideas grow from the reading.
 
Ooh, Roger Ebert. He's always had an interesting perspective on things and he's greatly missed. So much more to the man than just a 'critic'.

Now we get to my point. You may have seen this coming. We, ourselves, consist entirely in and of this material. Our identities, our names, our personalities, our beliefs, opinions, senses of humor--indeed, what we think of as our minds. We consist of one-dimensional bits of the cosmic total. And we might just as well be different bits--elsewhere--because the "self" is essentially an organizing principle which we have imposed upon this chaos.
Click to expand...
Food for thought indeed.
 
Good article Cryscat. Ebert was certainly an interesting man, and obviously thought a lot about life and his journey through it.


I liked the quote in quantum film "Every reality tunnel has something to teach us... if we're willing to listen."


T
 
(Since it's not letting me post my comment because it's too long, I' ll have to do it in two posts)


I just can't help to read an article and bring up points about it. Therefore here I go:

These particles can as well be in one place as another, even at the same time. As Wikipedia informs us: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a "multiverse" composed of mostly independent parallel universes.
Click to expand...
First, Wikipedia can never be a reference. Actual scientific papers should have been quoted. Anyways, this whole thing about parallel universes in quantum physics wasn´t because some particles could be in the other side of a wall without going through it? I admit that I haven´t read that much about quantum physics, but I think other hypothesis to the results of the experiments should be proposed to explain the phenomenon. Otherwise everything can be attributed to parallel universes.

The crucial word here is "simultaneously." I take it to mean that Everything can be thought of as being in no particular


place at any particular time.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If something is happen simultaneously they ARE in the particular place at a particular time. I am writing on my computer here while somebody in China is writing on the computer in China. The time is the same: NOW, the place is different. Nothing contradicts the paradigm since it's expected that two different people do things simultaneously. If I am writing on the computer in my bedroom and I' m also in the street at the same time, the time is the same: Now. The place is different. According to the current paradigm we cannot be in two different places at the same time. That is just to express that it doesn`t meant that things are in no particular place at any particular time, things have a place and a time, the problem is that the places in a certain time defy the current physical thinking. That's what happened with the particles experiment, the (same) particles were at both sides of the wall at the same time.


As a side note, I get it that time is a human construction, but honestly I don´t see a problem with it, I think there might


only be a problem in the way time is measured.But maybe that's for another topic.

This begins to sound suspiciously like the Ether, defined by medieval magicians as a fifth element flowing through the universe. We learn from the philosopher of Magick Matthew Rees: Ether is very versatile and can be transformed into matter, energy or even essence by spells... a spell does not detect the *presence* of ether, since ether is everywhere; rather it detects disturbances in the pattern or flow of ether.
Click to expand...
Too bad he didn´t elaborate more on this or use better references (if there are any). If the western concept of "Ether" is the same as the Eastern concept of Chi/Ki/Prana then we're into something. Probably the Ether, just as the Chi, are just


ions. IOns are electrically charged particles. We have ions in our body (sodium, potassium, etc) that by electrically


interacting with each other allow us to live (to move, to think, etc). There are also ions in the air that has been proven it affects our mood. My conclusion on this is: IONS are the moving force behind things, they are the ether, the chi, the Ki and the Prana. Could ions be transformed into matter? well, ions themselves ARE matter, can they create more matter by their electrical interactions? If they can I cannot think of any example. Can they create energy? naturally! they produce work by electrically interacting. Can it create "essence"? We would have to define essence, if "essence" is soul, they maybe not quite, but it may greatly affect it. Now as for "spells detect disturbances in the flow pattern", I' m not sure what he call "spells", but I think mood disposition alter the ion flow, so do some movements, breathing, etc (Has anyone practiced Tai-chi?).
 
Last edited:
If the Ether can be transformed into either matter and energy, then magicians were there before Einstein, and E=m2 can be thought of as a spell
Click to expand...
I wouldn´t call it a spell, just an explanation. A spell in those terms would be something that affects the Ether, Einstein


did not mean to affect them, just explain them.

Both quantum particles and the Ether can be considered in general terms to be that which is everywhere and Everything.
Click to expand...
Everything is made of something smaller, therefore the Ether/ions are made of quantum particles, they are not two separate entities. In general terms, humans are made of organs, it's not that there are humans and separately there are organs (no dark humour jokes please, lol)

now we get to my point. You may have seen this coming. We, ourselves, consist entirely in and of this material. Our identities, our names, our personalities, our beliefs, opinions, senses of humor--indeed, what we think of as our minds.
Click to expand...
Agree,to a certain degree.

We consist of one-dimensional bits of the cosmic total. And we might just as well be different bits--elsewhere--because the "self" is essentially an organizing principle which we have imposed upon this chaos
Click to expand...
I think there's a logical problem here. What he is saying is: since the image of self is human-made, then we could be


different somewhere else. I honestly don´t see the correlation. Even though the image of self is a construction, things in nature tend to organize and form bigger things, otherwise everything would just be a sea of particles, but it's not. Ions want to reach an equilibrium so they group with other ions until they have 8 electrons in their last orbit and they are stable. I don't see how that is related with being different in another universe.

Therefore, our identities were assembled from this quantum material, or Ether, by the organizing principle of our conception of ourselves. We bring ourselves into being.
Click to expand...
Why do we have to exist to create ourselves? I think it's more likely that we exist, and then we "create ourselves". We


realize we are something so then we try to rationalize what we are and we reflect on our own existence. To give an example, I understand that he is saying that we think we are a cup, therefore the ether organizes itself in the way of a cup. I think it's more likely that we are a cup (we have its form, its materials, etc), we have consciousness of our existence and we conclude that we are a cup by our form, shape, materials, etc. He thinks thought precedes existence, I think it's the opposite.


With the rest of the article I think I agree with to a more or less extent. In general terms I think it's fine, but I don't think it really explains reincarnation with the quantum mechanics theory at all.
 
Thanks for the link to your blog Ron, it was an interesting read.


Perhaps we can initiate another thread in the religion section sometime to discuss the religious aspects... where Abramamic meets Buddha.


Tman
 
There's nothing that says that Buddhist are atheists; in fact it's quite the opposite and many Buddhists pray right to Buddha if he were a god or saint himself.


Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism technically are considered religions. To Western eyes and ears they are a bit strange because they don't have a governing body nor a set of standardized beliefs and practices.


Most Eastern religions consist of two things: a philosophical core (teachings about how to live act, origin myths, what happens when you die ect.) and layer of folk religion and superstition. They're very akin to voo doo or santeria, to draw an analogy.
 
""There's nothing that says that Buddhist are atheists; ""


Well, there is the Dalai Lama for a start. Altho he considers Buddhism is a religion others, 'Pure Land' Buddhists for instance, say it is not, it is an education.


Nothing wrong with being an atheist or agnostic of course, both are perfectly reasonable positions to assume.
 
Do you have a source for that? I've never heard that before.. Buddhism is a non theistic religion. While that does leave room for atheistic interpretations, there's also plenty of room for divine beings, heaven hell and tons of other stuff. And once more that comes from not having a centralized "government".
 
"Do you have a source for that? I've never heard that before.. Buddhism is a non theistic religion. While that does leave room for atheistic interpretations, there's also plenty of room for divine beings, heaven hell and tons of other stuff. And once more that comes from not having a centralized "government"."


'Becoming Enlightened' by Dalai Lama.


"Probing emptiness requires looking into dependent-arising, and if its implications are understood, it becomes difficult to accept a single, permanent, unchangeable God as the creator of the world."


"Indeed, from the viewpoint of religions that assert a Creator God, Buddhism has a philosophy of exaggeration, seen in its assertion of former and future lives."


many more quotes in the book, these are two that i have found quickly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism


"Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,[1][2] refused to endorse many views on creation[3] and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.[4][5]"
 
I think we're just discussing semantics here. :D While technically correct, since Buddhism doesn't put an emphasis on creator gods, it can be considered atheist.


But in my mind, using the word atheist also implies that it is not concerned with phenomena beyond this world either; meaning that it's an existential belief. Which, as we're discussing is true and forms part of the core philosophy.


However the problem I have is that Buddhism requires an extra (spiritual) dimension to work. It doesn't need to be acknowledged directly, but it needs to exist. For without it, how would one leave this world and be reborn? Where are the 6 realms of existence?


That's why I think non-theistic religion is a better word to describe it, on the whole, while atheistic certainly falls under it as a central belief.
 
"But in my mind, using the word atheist also implies that it is not concerned with phenomena beyond this world either;"


an atheist is someone who doesnt believe in god.


"That's why I think non-theistic religion is a better word"


I think you're just discussing semantics here.
 
The BBC has an excellent site about all the different religions...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/


everything from Atheism to Zoroastrianism.


they include Atheism in their religion page! :cool:


*


​


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/ataglance/glance.shtml#h_keyfacts


"Buddhism : Key Facts


Buddhism is 2,500 years old


There are currently 376 million followers worldwide


There are over 150,000 Buddhists in Britain


Buddhism arose as a result of Siddhartha Gautama's quest for Enlightenment in around the 6th Century BC


There is no belief in a personal God. It is not centred on the relationship between humanity and God


Buddhists believe that nothing is fixed or permanent - change is always possible


The two main Buddhist sects are Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism, but there are many more


Buddhists can worship both at home or at a temple


The path to Enlightenment is through the practice and development of morality, meditation and wisdom."


Most New Age beliefs seem to me to be Buddhism Lite!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top