When K talks about ‘choiceless awareness’ without the observer, it seems to imply the existence of an observer who chooses. But is there really choice at all? What Does Quantum Theory Tell us About Free Will? by Chris Fields, November 1, 2014 One often hears that quantum theory saves free will from classical Newtonian or even Darwinian determinism. Investigating such claims, however, quickly gets complicated. Pure “unitary” or “minimal” quantum theory postulates fully deterministic dynamics, but only probabilistic outcomes for observations. Some interpretations of quantum theory – mostly traceable to John von Neumann, inventor of today’s most popular computer architecture – modify pure quantum theory by assuming that observations disrupt the otherwise-deterministic dynamics in a non-deterministic way. Some physicists, whether they agree with von Neumann about observations changing the dynamics or not, insist that observers “choose” what to observe, so all “observations” require free will. Others picture a universe in everything, including observations, “just happens” while still others insist that, in an important sense, nothing happens. So what’s the right answer? Does quantum theory save free will or not? In 2006, John Conway and Simon Kochen published a “free will theorem” that showed, subject to assumptions from special relativity and pure quantum theory, that if the actions of an observer are not determined by the events in her past, then the behavior of whatever she’s observing cannot be determined by the events in its past either. They are perfectly up-front about what this means: if anyone anywhere has free will, then so do elementary particles, or as Conway and Kochen put it, “fundamental particles are continually making their own decisions .” The Conway-Kochen theorem saves free will, but it’s clearly a double-edged sword. If everything has free will, then free will isn’t special – having free will is no big deal. So let’s look a little closer at what the theorem means. In special relativity, the “past” of something includes all events that could affect that something with a causal influence traveling no faster than light. The “past” of an observer is, therefore, everything that the observer could obtain any information about, even in principle. But this too is a double-edged sword, since it means that an observer never knows what’s happening now. Light travels 186,000 miles per second, so can get from anywhere on Earth to you in half the time it takes you to become conscious of something happening, but your consciousness is still grasping what just happened, not what’s happening now. Do we loose any free will due to what’s happening now? Does an electron? Quantum theory advises caution here. In pure quantum theory, at any rate, the physical state of the entire universe evolves as one. In pure quantum theory, everything is entangled, and entanglement is not causality, it’s connectedness. This connectedness has nothing to do with the speed of light: both you and the electron are connected with the whole rest of the universe now. What you’re doing, and what the electron is doing – in fact, what every individual thing is doing – is just what the whole universe is doing, right now. The Conway-Kochen theorem limits the deterministic effects of your individual past, but if everything is connected, your individual past doesn’t matter. What matters is the past of the whole universe, and the past of the whole universe includes everything. So the Conway-Kochen theorem is no protection: if everything is connected, you don’t have free will after all. Nothing has free will. But wait a minute. Maybe no individual thing has free will, but nothing says the whole universe can’t have free will. That works with both the Conway-Kochen theorem and the idea of universal connectedness. Maybe the right answer is not that every thing has free will, or that no thing has free will, but rather that everything – the whole totally-connected universe – has free will. Now that, you might say, is not what we were after. The universe could have free will back in the old, deterministic Newtonian world! It’s individual free will that counts. The Conway-Kochen theorem saved it, but then universal connectedness took it away. What goes? What happened to the idea that quantum theory is better than classical determinism? Let’s back up any try again. In pure quantum theory, the universe evolves as one. The “as one” here is serious: if you take away even one electron, things are different. Being part of a totally-connected universe doesn’t mean that what you do is determined by this part or that part, it only means that what you do is determined by what the whole universe is doing. So the situation is actually better than the Conway-Kochen theorem; it’s not just that your past does not determine your future, no part of the past, even one much larger than just yours, determines your future. Only the entire past of the whole universe determines your future, and neither you nor any other observer can observe the entire past, even in principle. So no one, even if they could look at the whole rest of the universe, can predict your future. This is, moreover, not true just of you, but also of electrons. No observer, even if they can look at the whole rest of the universe, can predict the behavior of just one electron. Is a future that no observer, no matter how large or powerful, can predict as good as free will? Is it even distinguishable from free will? If even the behavior of electrons is unpredictable in principle, do these questions even matter?
Recent Weekend Events at the Centre
/in Event Summaries /by David BruneauKrishnamurti Study Group Saturday, November 1, 2014 Nine participants showed up for this ongoing exploration of the book Freedom From the Known by J. Krishnamurti. We began to read half way through the last chapter of the book but only progressed a couple of paragraphs because there was immediately a great deal of earnest discussion about the subject matter, which was mainly concerned with how we create friction and therefore a loss of energy. K says that great energy is needed in order to inquire deeply. This statement was questioned and explored, and the fact of resistance to “what is” was looked at. It was expressed that it seems essential to really see the root of this resistance, with the resulting conflict and suffering, and the focused inquiry into this issue led to some fresh insight for at least some of the participants. It was expressed that the session was a “powerful” one. Inquiry Sunday November 2, 2014 For the morning session KECC had invited Keith Baker to give a talk and lead a discussion about his experience of having five cardiac arrests over a short period of time and the powerful “near death experience” that coincided with this event. There was a great deal of interest in the topic apparently as 28 people were in attendance. Keith spoke clearly about the profound experience of becoming pure, unlimited awareness and boundless love and realizing that that is what he truly is. An essential aspect of the experience he described as being the realization that everything is perfect exactly as it is. The distinction was made between “ideal” and “perfect”: although something may be far from ideal, there is a way in which it is always perfect. He then spoke of the importance of seeing through and releasing limiting beliefs and having belief systems that are congruent with one’s purpose. The talk was followed by questions from the group and some interesting discussion of what had been presented. After the meeting was officially ended, many people lingered to continue talking further with Keith and each other. In the afternoon, nine people stayed for a video of Krishnamurti on the topic of “meditation” and a group dyad and dialogue inquiry into what had been seen and heard. Krishnamurti’s approach to meditation is quite different from many teachings about the subject and it can be challenging for people to get a concrete sense of exactly what he is pointing to. One thing that seemed to be understood, at least verbally, by everyone was his emphasis that If there is a “meditator” then meditation is not happening. Meditation is perceiving what is without the meditator or observer, the thought-constructed “me” that is the result of conditioning and lack of clear seeing of our true nature. These statements by K provoked some serious investigation into the reality or otherwise of the separate “I” and some relating to what had been said and discussed in the morning session. There is always in these sessions the opportunity for real insight and transformation and for the awakening of this type of inquiry on an ongoing basis.
What does Quantum Theory tell us about Free Will?
/in Event Summaries /by Ralph TillerWhen K talks about ‘choiceless awareness’ without the observer, it seems to imply the existence of an observer who chooses. But is there really choice at all? What Does Quantum Theory Tell us About Free Will? by Chris Fields, November 1, 2014 One often hears that quantum theory saves free will from classical Newtonian or even Darwinian determinism. Investigating such claims, however, quickly gets complicated. Pure “unitary” or “minimal” quantum theory postulates fully deterministic dynamics, but only probabilistic outcomes for observations. Some interpretations of quantum theory – mostly traceable to John von Neumann, inventor of today’s most popular computer architecture – modify pure quantum theory by assuming that observations disrupt the otherwise-deterministic dynamics in a non-deterministic way. Some physicists, whether they agree with von Neumann about observations changing the dynamics or not, insist that observers “choose” what to observe, so all “observations” require free will. Others picture a universe in everything, including observations, “just happens” while still others insist that, in an important sense, nothing happens. So what’s the right answer? Does quantum theory save free will or not? In 2006, John Conway and Simon Kochen published a “free will theorem” that showed, subject to assumptions from special relativity and pure quantum theory, that if the actions of an observer are not determined by the events in her past, then the behavior of whatever she’s observing cannot be determined by the events in its past either. They are perfectly up-front about what this means: if anyone anywhere has free will, then so do elementary particles, or as Conway and Kochen put it, “fundamental particles are continually making their own decisions .” The Conway-Kochen theorem saves free will, but it’s clearly a double-edged sword. If everything has free will, then free will isn’t special – having free will is no big deal. So let’s look a little closer at what the theorem means. In special relativity, the “past” of something includes all events that could affect that something with a causal influence traveling no faster than light. The “past” of an observer is, therefore, everything that the observer could obtain any information about, even in principle. But this too is a double-edged sword, since it means that an observer never knows what’s happening now. Light travels 186,000 miles per second, so can get from anywhere on Earth to you in half the time it takes you to become conscious of something happening, but your consciousness is still grasping what just happened, not what’s happening now. Do we loose any free will due to what’s happening now? Does an electron? Quantum theory advises caution here. In pure quantum theory, at any rate, the physical state of the entire universe evolves as one. In pure quantum theory, everything is entangled, and entanglement is not causality, it’s connectedness. This connectedness has nothing to do with the speed of light: both you and the electron are connected with the whole rest of the universe now. What you’re doing, and what the electron is doing – in fact, what every individual thing is doing – is just what the whole universe is doing, right now. The Conway-Kochen theorem limits the deterministic effects of your individual past, but if everything is connected, your individual past doesn’t matter. What matters is the past of the whole universe, and the past of the whole universe includes everything. So the Conway-Kochen theorem is no protection: if everything is connected, you don’t have free will after all. Nothing has free will. But wait a minute. Maybe no individual thing has free will, but nothing says the whole universe can’t have free will. That works with both the Conway-Kochen theorem and the idea of universal connectedness. Maybe the right answer is not that every thing has free will, or that no thing has free will, but rather that everything – the whole totally-connected universe – has free will. Now that, you might say, is not what we were after. The universe could have free will back in the old, deterministic Newtonian world! It’s individual free will that counts. The Conway-Kochen theorem saved it, but then universal connectedness took it away. What goes? What happened to the idea that quantum theory is better than classical determinism? Let’s back up any try again. In pure quantum theory, the universe evolves as one. The “as one” here is serious: if you take away even one electron, things are different. Being part of a totally-connected universe doesn’t mean that what you do is determined by this part or that part, it only means that what you do is determined by what the whole universe is doing. So the situation is actually better than the Conway-Kochen theorem; it’s not just that your past does not determine your future, no part of the past, even one much larger than just yours, determines your future. Only the entire past of the whole universe determines your future, and neither you nor any other observer can observe the entire past, even in principle. So no one, even if they could look at the whole rest of the universe, can predict your future. This is, moreover, not true just of you, but also of electrons. No observer, even if they can look at the whole rest of the universe, can predict the behavior of just one electron. Is a future that no observer, no matter how large or powerful, can predict as good as free will? Is it even distinguishable from free will? If even the behavior of electrons is unpredictable in principle, do these questions even matter?
K Study Group
/in Event Summaries /by David BruneauKrishnamurti Study Group Saturday, October 25, 2014 Four people gathered at the Swanwick Centre to continue with the ongoing study of the text Freedom From the Known. We covered the first half of Cbapter 16, which is the last chapter of the book. The subjects explored by K in this segment are total revolution, the religious mind, and energy. He asks if the human being can, by seeing the nature of his or her relationship with the world, bring about a different quality of mind which he calls in this case “the religious mind”. There was some questioning of why he uses the word “religious” when he always seemed to challenge any kind of belief system or organizational approach. We explored what might be meant by the true meaning of the religious mind and what is involved in opening to that reality. The issue of wasting energy through conflict was investigated and the nature of the attention or awareness needed to move beyond this habitual and conditioned way of living. It seemed that all participants felt the dialogue had been penetrating and beneficial, and the value of sharing in this way was appreciated.
You are the Unknown
/in Event Summaries /by David BruneauThe link below brings to mind K’s classic ‘Freedom from the Known’. Freedom from the known is knowing You are the Unknown. http://youtu.be/R5wZT2E78cY
What exactly is being Truly “helpful?”
/in Event Summaries /by David BruneauI gave a printed copy of the last blog, “Keep it Clean,” to a friend and she returned it just now with the comment… “This wasn’t really very helpful to ‘me’ at this stage, but thanks anyway.” I contemplated this and the only thing that kept popping up is kind of the other side of what the “Keep it Clean” blog says as regards to not conversing with “another” or always talking to one’s Self. I have found that it makes all the difference in the world if one is reading, watching videos or listening to tapes that “come from Presence” – ie: Krishnamurti, Mooji, Gangaji et al – by remaining as my Self. I will not “get anything” out of the listening if not listening from Presence. In fact it should feel as if one is not getting anything. How can I “get” what I am already being? Is water ever trying to get its wetness? To an intellect, whose job is to conceptually “get” or grasp, this can be most upsetting. To say I don’t get this, or that it’s “over my head” or it isn’t helpful is quite accurate. It is impossible to mentally grasp the pure Being I Am. One cannot think the marvelous sense of Presence, one can only “feel” It by being It. And to see that is to “get” It. Awareness cannot be “used” to help clear up perceived problems. All seeming problems are due to not seeing or “coming from” the Awareness I Am. For as This, no problems exist in the first place. All apparent suffering comes from identifying with the illusory separate self or little struggling ‘me’ that is trying to “get it”, instead of the pure Self I Am. Coming from the I-Principle or as K says, “Choiceless Awareness,” and not from thought, is being Truly helpful. Of course the Advaita police might say, “And to whom is it being truly helpful? Awareness doesn’t need any help and there isn’t two!” And I would have to agree with that, even though it ‘feels’ kind of unhelpful to do so!
“Keep it Clean”
/in Event Summaries /by David BruneauIt seems whenever I have been either listening to or in the actual presence of a “wise one” aka : Jiddu Krishnamurti or UG Krishnamurti, there is an energy of Truth to their words…a finality if you will. Sharing this with friend Peter Dziuban he wrote back this morning with a link to a “Stillness Speaks” blog that dealt with this very issue… Robert writes: Hi Peter, I have been in the presence of several “wise ones” and there seems to be a certain richness or depth to their words. Like a carrier wave of Truth that is undisputable. I recall you saying that Alfred Aiken said if one comes consciously “from” Being then the words are imbued with this energy and are definitely “felt”. It seems that “at this point in the game” I almost have to catch “myself” as the thinking seems to draw the attention before I am able to just rest as Awareness and let the words flow from there. Just sharing. No question really. Thanks Peter writes: Hi Robert, Thanks for your emails. That’s right, about “coming from Presence” when talking…there is all the difference in the world. Yes, it may seem at first that it’s necessary to “catch oneself” a lot, but with a little persistence you’ll be surprised how quickly it becomes easier, in fact natural to “talk as Presence.” And it doesn’t have to be done only when talking with a spiritual group–in fact, it’s something that can be done all the time, even on mundane phone conversations, or whatever. Here’s a post titled Keep It Clean from 2011 on the Stillness Speaks website. If you haven’t seen it already, it talks about this very thing: http://peterdziuban.stillnessspeaks.com/ssblog/awareness-presence-not-two-duality-consciousness-self-now-spiritual/ All the best, Peter
Recent Weekend Events at KECC
/in Event Summaries /by David BruneauKrishnamurti Study Group Saturday, October 18, 2014 Five people gathered on the lawn to continue with the study of Freedom From the Known. None of the participants had not been at the previous meeting and the interest was in looking at the last half of Chapter 15, which had been explored at that time. The main subject being discussed by K was meditation and attention, but other issues were also presented by inquirers. There was a questioning of K’s apparent dismissal of all teachers and the proposal was made that there have been teachers for all of us who have been of great help. It was suggested that K is saying that Life itself is the teacher, which could include “teachers” as well as anyone we meet or any situation or happening in our daily lives. Perhaps he is indicating that depending on teachers is a way of not looking for ourselves at what is actually going on. A further question was concerning K’s sometimes harsh judgements about the pettiness of most people and the seeming contradiction when he says we must look at ourselves without condemnation or approval, without judgement of any kind. Without presuming to have an answer to the question, it was suggested that he may speak the way he does because he is attempting to shock us into paying attention and “waking up.” Next meeting we will enter into the last chapter of the book. Inquiry Sunday Sunday, October 19, 2014 Inquiry Sunday usually consists of a morning and an afternoon session. This time the morning session highlighted a video of American teacher Adyashant entitled “The Redeeming Presence of Love”. In fact most of the talk discussed the issues of birth, life, and death. Four people were present. Adya went into the ideas of birth and death and pointed to the importance of transcending the fear of death, not only as an ultimate event but as a psychological reality every moment of life. The fear of death is inseparable from the idea that we are born as opposed to the awareness of our true nature as that which is prior to birth. He then spoke of the need to go beyond transcendence and to bring the understanding into the day to day small events of living. This merging of the transcendent with the immanent is what he called the redeeming quality of Love. The video was followed by some brief discussion about “how” one brings love into everyday actions. It was suggested that it is a question of love acting and not “us” acting. The afternoon session began with a video of Krishnamurti speaking on “The Violent Self”, a collection of segments of his talks on violence. This is one of the Evelyn Blau compilations in the “Beyond Myth and Tradition” series. The main emphasis of K’s pointings was that if we can look at ourselves without division, without the conflict of the observer and the observed, then a tremendous energy is made available which puts an end to violence completely. This is an understanding and an action that Krishnamurti applies to all self examination and possibility of radical change. The video was as usual followed by a discussion of aspects of what had been listened to which were of particular interest to the participants.
Freedom & Self-Transformation
/in Event Summaries /by Ralph TillerAn introduction to Krishnamurti on this theme took place at the University of Victoria this week. The first in this setting, it was attended by 13 participants. A ‘Krishnamurti on Freedom’ video, narrated by Prof. Allan Anderson, and a talk by K on ‘Freedom from Fear’ from the 1966 Real Revolution series were followed by a lively Q&A session.
Krishnamurti Video and Dialogue in Victoria
/in Event Summaries /by David BruneauKrishnamurti Video and Dialogue October 12, 2014 This public showing of Krishnamurti took place at the Church of Truth in Victoria on Sunday afternoon. Six people were in attendance for the video from the series “Attention and Order”, talks given by K in Ojai, California, in 1984. We had already shown the first two talks in the series; this was the first of two Question and Answer sessions where K read out questions that had been submitted and then entered into a dialogue with the questioner on the topic raised. He pointed out fairly soon that there were too many people in the audience to allow for personal interaction so he would represent the questioners and have a dialogue with himself. A particularly interesting point he made right from the start was that the answer is in the question and not apart from it. The question has to be looked into for the assumptions and beliefs that are limiting the understanding of the questioner, and this is much more important than providing some sort of conceptual answer to any question. He also discussed in some detail the issue of thought and attention as well as other questions. The dialogue that followed picked up on the issue of whether there is a kind of attention or awareness that can see the limitation of thought and bring about a change or “mutation” in the brain. Some earnest exploration took place which included the sense that we must all find out for ourselves through our own inquiry, whether that takes place in the supportive atmosphere of a group setting or in one’s own daily life.
“What if?”
/in Event Summaries /by David BruneauNow, I realize that the expression nicknamed ‘K’ spent most of his apparent life teaching that one must be diligent in watching thoughts and that it takes tremendous energy to do this etc. And that there can be a human brain that gets completely transformed etc. I am in no way pooh-poohing this. But what if? What if one turned the whole thing around and started from the pure Self that is all there is? The perfect all-present Awareness that is all that Truly IS. Can any im-perfection be found? As Awareness “precludes” all thought; is there anything or anywhere “beyond?” Does pure Being need to ‘glimpse’ Itself? It already is all the Being there is, so leaves no secondary would-be mind to glimpse anything! Looking from Here the ‘world’ truly doesn’t exist; so is there any need to continue talking about “You are the world and the world is you?” There is only You! It’s like the difference between riding a bike and struggling up a long hill as opposed to effortlessly, alertly coasting downhill. As Mooji says, “You have nothing to do.” Happy Thanksgiving. Any comments?