BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Quantum Physics and Magical Theory

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Quantum
19:02 / 27.01.06
I found that many magical concepts are translatable into the languages of philosophy and psychology. Also there seem to be some similarities between certain spiritual worldviews and modern physics. In fact that's an area I think is highly fascinating - but of course that's my personal preference. Morgana

My background is in Philosophy and Psychology, I am interested in Physics and Magic and my name's Quantum so I claim the right to start this thread, even if it's been done before. The only old thread I could find was this on Contradiction between science and magic.

So, let's start with the Tao of Physics (Capra) and move on to sympathy and contagion in subatomic particles... anyone?
 
 
SMS
19:14 / 27.01.06
I think that scientific/quantum theories tend to be misused by magicians and such. QM, regardless of all its oddness, has nothing to do with unverifiable subjectivities. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be used as kind of metaphor for magical activity. Or that the language cannot be translated into the magical realm. But, if we do that, we should remember that the translator is a traitor. Once the term is used magically, its meaning changes into something else.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
02:12 / 28.01.06
My background is in Philosophy and Psychology, I am interested in Physics and Magic and my name's Quantum so I claim the right to start this thread, even if it's been done before.

Know what's weird? I've been thinking for years that there was a thread like this somewhere (it's such an obvious idea for a thread, the idea of the two being linked is constantly being mentioned in this forum), but really I can't remember anyone ever actually starting one.

I can't say I left The Tao of Physics with a true recallable knowledge of how things really work in the quantum world (certainly not the first time I read it, anyway), but rather with a vague sense that physics was now much, much stranger than I had ever guessed. I couldn't explain why to other people why without making it sound crazy or stupidly exaggerated. Having studied more has definately put some things in perspective. It's a lot more normal and a lot more strange.

There seem to be some similarities between certain spiritual worldviews and modern physics. Discuss them here.

Awright. Well, there's the binary aspect. You don't have to look too hard to find something similar, if not nearly identical, in the mystic/occult world.

I believe Capra compares sub-atomic particles's crazy beat with Shiva's dance in one chapter.

The early chapter with a bit demonstrating why two-dimensional geometry doesn't work on a curved surface helped me start working out a 3-d representation of a 4-d object (this was before I had read the Invisibles).

Before I open any of those up, I guess I ought to go study up on sympathy and contagion a bit more, which looking back now seems to be where you wanted to start. Let me get back to this thread when I've done my homework.
 
 
Quantum
14:58 / 28.01.06
Groovy. Sympathy and Contagion are the two principles Frazier highlights in The Golden Bough as the fundamental laws of magic.
Sympathy= Like affects Like (a doll of a person has a resemblance to them so it affects them when you stick a pin in it)
Contagion= Once together always together (so a lock of hair from a person retains it's connection to them)

Entanglement is the weird effect that a split photon pair will affect each other instantaneously (thus faster than light) over any distance. Einstein called this "Spooky action at a distance".
No prizes for spotting the similarity between Contagion and Entanglement.

The collapse of the wave function (Schroedinger's cat) implies the universe is psychoreactive at a Quantum level, responding to conscious attention of an observer. Sounds like Will and Intent might have a possibility of directly affecting the world.

The fundamental nature of reality turns out to be neither one thing or another (cf. Young's double slit experiment, wave/particle duality in general) but changes depending on the model you use and the results you expect.

Parallel worlds are a strong contender to explain some quantum events, and extra dimensions might be coiled up inside the heart of matter (string and superstring theory), mass and energy are interchangeable, things pop in and out of existence apparently at random, some things are going back in time, the world when you look at it really closely is terribly strange and counterintuitive. So the weirdness of magic seems tame in comparison.

I'll chuck some links in for the physics if anyone asks. Any physicists reading BTW, or just occultists?
 
 
Morgana
16:25 / 28.01.06
Great, this is exactly the right stuff to get me going! I'm not a physicist though, so please correct me if I'm starting to talk rubbish.

I think that scientific/quantum theories tend to be misused by magicians and such.

Many "New Age"-people do that, indeed. E.g. the claim seems to be quite popular in certain circles, that quantum nonlocality actually does prove sympathy magic. Which is about ten steps ahead of just stating a similarity between contagion and entanglement - or between the motions of sub-atomic particles and Shiva's dance.

At least I don't understand exactly how burning a curl of my enemy's hair should harm him through entanglement on quantum level. I mean, it's not even likely his head will catch fire...

So we've got an analogy here, which perhaps shows that there's something about the old Hermetic teachings that microcosm equals macrocosm, but magic can't be proved scientifically this way, as many people, feeling disqualified as crackpots by "our disenchanted scientifical world", seem to hope.

For me the really exciting thing about quantum physics (which, I must admit, I only understand in terms of popular science, as I simply don't seem to be able to grasp formulae) is that it isn't really settled, yet, there being so many open questions. Entanglement being a good example again, as they seemingly didn't come up with a satisfying explanation for this phenomenon, so far, which doesn't completely contradict our current understanding of reality.

So there could be a great shift of paradigms ahead, knocking down Newtonian physics, which is so very un-magic. Thinking of the universe not as a giant clockwork, but at a giant conciousness could change and explain quite a lot, for example.

On the other hand, I believe this wouldn't really be useful for improving the kind of technology we're currently using, so perhaps it won't happen before we run out of non-renewable resources and for this reason have to re-structure society.

Anyway, I'd be really interested if anybody came up with some good explanation of how manipulations on quantum-level, like entanglement or the influence of an observer could possibly have effects on larger objects, and, the other way round, how e.g. my observing a raindrop running down a window could affect its way by fixing its quantum-state?
 
 
Wombat
17:09 / 28.01.06
Physicist here. But very rusty on things like QM and GR. Not the kind of things you use on a day to day basis. Modern theories I know to about the pop-science level.

Anyway, I'd be really interested if anybody came up with some good explanation of how manipulations on quantum-level, like entanglement or the influence of an observer could possibly have effects on larger objects, and, the other way round, how e.g. my observing a raindrop running down a window could affect its way by fixing its quantum-state?

The word observer is quite specialised in this context. An observer doesn`t have to be human or even alive. It can be a recording device or any irreversable thermal process.

I`m pretty sure that entanglement won`t scale up to large object level. It`s very difficult to entangle even a few atoms (As seen in quantum computing). Thermal effects and cosmic rays disrupt the entanglement very rapidly.
(Although Penrose disagrees with this and thinks that entanglement occurs in the human brain)

Other quantum effects scale up pretty well. Transistors work using quantum tunneling.

The closest QM theory to magic is the work of David Bohm. According to Bohm the universe has a holographic nature so that everything is connected to everthing else. (although if Heim theory works out , with it`s information field as an actual physical thing and it`s spare time dimension then magic stops being magic and becomes physics)

I can see how QM , Sympathy and Contagion seem very similar but can`t see how there is any kind of physical link between the two. ( although there is an alarm Bell ringing in part of my brain). Thinkage will take place and I`ll get back to you.
 
 
LVX23
18:28 / 28.01.06
I'd echo the recommendation to read Bohm, esp "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".

I personally tend to sit on the fence wrt physical explanations of magick. Part of me sees a lot of potential in QM that might explain the mechanisms of magick. But anotehr part of me suspects that magick proceeds on a level even more subtle than sub-atomic particles. However, such discoveries like entanglement certainly seem to imply magick might be "explainable" by physics. Larger and larger objects have exhibited entanglement and this may provide more evidence that the quantum world can show macro-level effects (this is usually the biggest complaint of physicists - that quantum mechanics ONLY occurs at the quantum level so it can't be used to explain human experience). Given what we know about physics it's probably fair to assume that ALL experiences are ultimately bound to some scalable physical laws, even if we haven't yet determined what those laws are..

Lately I've been thinking along the lines of information theory more than quantum theory (though the two certainly overlap). I feel that thought is not merely confined to the skull. This is what the astral plane is, imo: a field of shared thought. But if every force has a carrier particle (as is predicated on efforts to find a unified field theory) then what is the carrier of thought? Of course this assumes that thought can exert a force, which it certainly seems to. I mean, I'm typing what I'm thiking right now, right.

Another angle I frequently find myself looking at is the idea of trance/peak states as mediating a quantum interface inside the brain. That state when self-reference narrows down into an infinite point in the middle of your forehead, then simultaneously explodes out to the edges of the universe. This to me is a moment of access to the holographic plenum of everything/nothing. This is when the spell is cast so it's fed into the whole system. It's analogous to the butterfly effect so championed by chaos theorists. The ritual establishes the circumstances necessary to find that exact moment to inject one's will into the dynamic whisps of that would-be hurricane.
 
 
Seth
04:34 / 29.01.06
I would be happy to apply what little I understand about quantum physics as a metaphor for plenty of other situations in life, and have been known to use it in discussing literature as much as I do magic. However I only try to use it as a metaphor, and I suspect that I play rather too fast and loose with it even in that aspect, in that I care more about the thing that I'm using it to describe than I do about quantum physics. Accordingly I've decided to drop it a great deal in recent years, when I've realised there are other ways of talking about a subject: that way I'm not appropriating something I don't really get, and also avoiding situations in which I'm explaining something I don't really understand (magic) with something else I don't really understand (quantum physics).

When I started Common Magical Metaphors: Evolution I always intended to come at quantum physics from a similar perspective, the kind of thread that's an open invitation to having my shonky reasoning corrected. Hoping for some of that here.
 
 
Wombat
07:01 / 29.01.06
There is a paper by Carl Jung that is very relavant to this. "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle". predates the Bell experiments and a lot of QM but seems to be spot on. (I`ll try to google up a copy...long time since I read it... I think it also links in the the Frasier stuff and collective unconcious..but that`s probably wishfull remembering on my behalf)

Information can travel faster than light (no carrier particle, no rest mass. (and hence can travel back in time). It can exist in a mindlike environment. Has a definate impact on the world. I can look up the definition ..but (like conciousness) I have no idea what it actually is. Any new perspective from a magic world view?
 
 
illmatic
08:42 / 29.01.06
Really surprised no one has mentioned Pete Carroll yet. He has been ploughing this field for more than a decade and has reached his own conclusions, from what looks (from the outside) like a thorough understanding of the material.

I believe Capra compares sub-atomic particles's crazy beat with Shiva's dance in one chapter

Personally, following Seth's position, I am very skeptical of the whole synthesis. I really hate thing like Capra's book - he rips Eastern ideas totally of out of context and blurs them together with pop phyics. It's bollocks to ram the two together as he does. I know this isn't the point of the thread but I feel his eclectic borrowing of Eastern ideas doesn't aid anyone's understanding of these texts and the cultural context that they emerge from.
 
 
Morgana
17:33 / 30.01.06
Information can travel faster than light (no carrier particle, no rest mass. (and hence can travel back in time).

This is actually a physicist view of information? I'd really appreciate if you looked up the definition.
 
 
Quantum
17:48 / 30.01.06
Matter travelling backwards in time = Antimatter.
Photons are time-symmetric, so energy like light looks the same going both ways. Neutrons and a load of other chargeless particles are also time-symmetric IIRC.
This is physics, not magic, Feynmann is the man to google.

When you try to explain the behaviour of light and gravity (macro features) you end up having to accept counterintuitive facts about the micro world.

knocking down Newtonian physics, which is so very un-magic.

Au contraire, Isaac was a commited alchemist who proposed an invisible action-at-a-distance appealing to the nature of God as it's cause. We still can't explain gravity properly.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
18:46 / 30.01.06
this thread has some comments that are well suited to this conversation, specifically Pants Payroll's post towards the bottom. Good stuff.
 
 
Quantum
18:46 / 30.01.06
Read Me for an introduction to Quantum Physics for the interested layperson.

Here's an interview with Carroll about his 6D Rebel Physics model Illmatic linked. I'm not convinced his physics is sound but his motivation is clear-
"Whilst the hypothesis of 3 dimensional time remains unfalsified, I intend to devote my time to exploring its implications in parapsychology and starship design"
Having not read enough Carroll I'm not in a position to criticise his model, but it strikes me as a relatively simplistic interpretation by an intelligent educated amateur physicist (just like my model but that's another story). As opposed to a professional Physicist's model explaining the data using advanced mathematics and accepting the results, even if they preclude starship design.
What I'm saying is, I'd level the same complaint Illmatic made about Capra's understanding of magic at Carroll's understanding of physics- it's skewed to fit the desired result.
 
 
Wombat
20:36 / 30.01.06
This is actually a physicist view of information? I'd really appreciate if you looked up the definition.

There are too many definitions to look up.

A quick thought experiment should show what I mean.

There are 3 points A,B and C spaced one light second apart in a straight line. None of the points are moving relative to each other. No heavy masses, wormholes or anything else I`ve missed.

At time T = 0, B releases a blue photon to either point A or C...and releases a red photon to the other point. Neither photon is entangled with the other (again nothing complicated or sneaky going on here) . At this time the only information A and C have is the experimental setup.

At T = 1 an observer at C measures the photon and instantly knows the colour of the photon at A.

That's the kind of information I`m talking about. Note that nothing physical broke the speed of light and most of the message was contained within the information about the experimental setup. Even so C has extra information about the point A that didn`t before the instant the photon was measured. I`ll get you a more complicated example (probably involving entanglement) when you argue that the same information was sent to A and C. (in the unlikely event you want it). But hopefully you understand what I mean by information now.
 
 
Wombat
20:40 / 30.01.06
Aah. To make things clearer (I hope). Information can travel faster than light..but a message/data couldn`t. Even if the photons were entangled A and C couldn't talk to each other faster than light. (prepares for a flamestorm from the entanglement croud)
 
 
Chiropteran
03:51 / 31.01.06
I'm not a physicist, by any stretch (I was a music major...), but in the example you give, I'm not quite sure I understand about the information "traveling" faster than light; it seems to me, rather, that the information (i.e. the color at A) was created/deduced/"came into being" from data already at point C at T=1, and as such didn't "travel" anywhere. I'm probably missing the point completely?

If we do grant, though, that the information doesn't "travel," then does that mean that information (at least in this example) is nonlocal (or exhibits nonlocality, or whatever), in that information about point A was created at point C without a contact/connection with point A? Or am I overstretching the definition (which I can barely read)? I appreciate your patience while I try to get my head around this.
 
 
Wombat
08:31 / 31.01.06
Lepidopteran - You havn't missed the point at all. In fact you are way ahead. I was going for a bertlmann's socks proof of non-locality (FTL) and acausality (Time travel). Should have just provided wikipedia links rather than blathering on. Above example doesn`t prove anything..but does define parameters.
 
 
Chiropteran
12:26 / 31.01.06
Oh, neat. Please, proceed - this is interesting.
 
 
HCE
11:40 / 01.02.06
Can you explain why you refer to a photon as information? Is it possible that when somebody is given your example, that person might think that information in the sense of a photon is the same as information in the sense of an emotion or a name?

I think that some confusion arises from using non-mathematical or non-scientific language to describe any kind of physics. It is necessary to use such language to help people understand the math, but you really do need both. Without the language, it can be difficult to know exactly what you're looking at.

When you get all language and no math, you have the same problem but worse, because math without language is less easy to mistakenly apply to a wide variety of subjects.
 
 
Chiropteran
13:32 / 01.02.06
Can you explain why you refer to a photon as information?

The photon itself isn't the information. The information relates to the observer-at-point-C's awareness of the color of the photon at point A, as extrapolated from the color of the photon at point C (within the framework of the experimental setup). To put it more precisely (I think?), the information would be the outcome of the equation in which the unknown variable (color of photon A) is dependent on the known color value of photon C.
 
 
HCE
15:32 / 01.02.06
I'm afraid I don't quite understand why that particular word is needed here, but perhaps as the thread goes on I will be able to figure it out.
 
 
Morgana
16:39 / 01.02.06
Here's just some half-digested ideas, as I'm too busy at the moment to really think it all through, but want to keep up with the discussion...

Au contraire, Isaac was a commited alchemist who proposed an invisible action-at-a-distance appealing to the nature of God as it's cause. We still can't explain gravity properly.

What I meant is, that Newtonian physics is mechanistic and lays much stress on causality, picturing the universe as a big clockwork, which usually doesn't get along well with a mystical-magical view, seeing all things connected, thinking in waves or fields rather than particles, perhaps believing that effects can be prior to their causes etc. pp., while more recent approaches in physics do fit much better with this point of view.
Also, alchemy, as the predecessor of chemistry, is a rather scientific way of thinking, at least if people restrict to the material part of it.

Concerning information: Aren't there two kinds of it? Something like quantitative and qualitative? The first being the carrier, like e.g. a binary code, and the second being the "message"? I've read something about that recently, but can't remember, where. But I think it was about the fact that a large quantity of data can sometimes carry a minimal amount of information - and the other way round - which also depends on the recipient, i.e. their ability to extract the information from the carrier.

So the photon would be the carrier, while the message would be "blue" or "red", and as the recipient has some prior information, they are getting even more out of it, i.e. the colour of the photon about to arrive at point A?

Still I'd be thrilled to learn more about information traveling backwards in time and entanglement.

The closest QM theory to magic is the work of David Bohm. According to Bohm the universe has a holographic nature so that everything is connected to everthing else.

Isn't that what's meant by nonlocality?
 
 
Wombat
21:11 / 01.02.06

Isn't that what's meant by nonlocality?

Not really.
Returning to the example above. If we draw a graph of this with B at the origin, the x-axis in metres and the y axis as time multiplied by the speed of light (giving a unit of metres also). Then we have a Minkowski diagram. The paths of the photons describe B`s Light cone. Anything within the light cone describes B's local space. Anything outside of it is non-local (breaks speed of light). The mathematical description of both entanglement and relativity hold up really well..what it means is still undecided.
Entangled particles transmit information outside the light cone and are hence non-local.
Bohm explained the contradiction ( no FTL and entanglement) using higher dimensional objects. Imagine you live in flatland and a 3d person pointed 2 cameras (at a 9 degree angle) at a fishtank containing a goldfish..then transmitted the images to your 2d world. Changes to one fish instantly (in your land) instantly change the other (entangled) fish. Pointing the camera at 2 different fish (unentangled) means changes in one doesn`t instantly effect the other. Bohm ( as I understood it...and I`m probably very wrong) explained our perception of reality as a shadow of a higher dimensional Hologram. If you cut a hologram in half you get 2 lower resolution holograms...hence the interconnectedness thing. Non-local just means faster than light.

*removes lab coat and puts on a pointy hat*
I`ve tried to keep to Science. Probably made a mess (Maths and words are just communication tools..both are open to interpretation..I`m guessing the universe isn`t..both physicists and maths people get pissed off if you think maths is Real (except for neo-platonicists.)). Now for the bullshit. Made-up, untestable bollocks. My theory of the week.

I`m gonna define information as negative entropy. I`m defining entropy as the number of possible states in a system. An object at rest can be described by 3 coordinates (newton physics here). If you know the object is confined to a box then the possible states are reduced. Information has increased, entropy has made a bigger gain (2nd law of thermodynamics demands an overall entropy increase arrow of time etc..). Information rich things prey on lower lifeforms.
Humans may dwell in meat-space but we also have an interface to information space ( Penrose thinks this is because there is entanglement within the human brain).
I think that information can affect the wave function *dons a straight jacket*
So for me (at the moment) the "energy" of magic is Information. I`m also claiming memes and memeplexes are forms of information. So devote neurons to your magic and get a little result, work with a memeplex get better results, but you can never ever change something you have already observed or are outside the wave function.
 
 
Wombat
22:06 / 01.02.06
Arse...I chose my explanations to fit my world view...bag of salt required...Carroll stuff after understanding( if possible).
 
 
LVX23
06:01 / 02.02.06
If you cut a hologram in half you get 2 lower resolution holograms...hence the interconnectedness thing.

I thought that a true hologram always retained absolute identity no matter how many times it was cut in half...? Ie, it would never lose any resolution no matter how small. As above, so below.


Non-local just means faster than light.

Though it also implies space. In the case of entanglement, information travels from one photon across a space to the second photon without any measurable delay in transmission. Hence, it appears to travel faster than light, as if I suddenly moved from couch A to couch B without any time elapsing during the move. I think super-luminal strictly means faster than light.
 
 
Morgana
11:56 / 06.02.06
This is really embarrassing to admit, but I just found out that obviously I never really grasped the concept of entropy...

So, just omitting that concept, do you say, that the amount of information increases the lesser possible states a system has, Wombat?

Actually, I don't think I'm getting this at all
 
 
Wombat
15:58 / 06.02.06
LVX23 - *blush* Agreed on both counts. (although I tend to keep my true holograms in a box with my massless strings and frictionless slopes..although in the context of Bohm theory, spot on)

Morgana - I`d put my mage hat on by that point..and defined information to suit my own purposes. Both information and entropy have lots of different meanings in different contexts. (I`m sure you can use wikipedia to look em up). In the above rant (I need a beer lock on my keyboard) it`s more the other way around.. information about a system reduces the number of states.
 
 
Morgana
19:18 / 06.02.06
Yes, I'm proud to say that I actually am able to use Wikipedia - but my mind just goes tilt when facing abstract scientific concepts, and googling doesn't really help with that, because I could read six different entries about entropy and still wouldn't grasp it.

Could you give another example on how information reduces the number of possible states?
 
 
Wombat
21:12 / 06.02.06
(Paraphrased from Zemansky`s "Heat and thermodynamics")

Suppose that you are called upon to guess a persons first name. The number of choices is staggeringly large. With no hint or clue, the number of ways in which one can arrive ata a name is very large, and the information at one`s disposal is small. Suppose, now, that we are told the person is a man. Immediately the number of choices of names is reduced, whereas the information is increased. Information is increased further if we are told the mans name begins with H, for then the number of choices (or ways of picking the mans name) is reduced very greatly. It is clear that the fewer the number of ways a particular situation or a particular state of a system may be achieved, the greater is the information.

(earlier on entropy was defined in a SIMILAR but not the same way as I mentioned above. In this case the entropy was defined as "Entropy measures the lack of information about the exact state of a system" (but with lots more maths and ideal monatomic gas). There was also a demon owned by Maxwell). The maths definition is S = k ln (theta) where S is entropy, k is a constant and theta is the number of states... um ln() is the natural log... I know you know this..ooh and a number following a variable means same thing different time *WEG* )

A convenient measure of the information conveyed when the number of choices is reduced from Theta0 to Theta1 is given by

I = k * ln (theta0/theta1);

since k * ln (theta) is the entropy S

I = S0 - S1

or S1 = s0 - I

which can be interpreted to mean that the entropy of a system is reduced by the amount of information about the state of a system.

Morgana- above magic theory is rubble. I used 2 incompatable models of the universe, chose my own definitions to fit my current worldview and was generally a very, very bad magician/scientist. If you want to prove me wrong I`m way ahead of you. Basically magic bites you one day and then (if you are cowardly , anal retentive, nerdy and detached from consensus reality) you spend a lot of your time working out what magic is and how it bit you. I`d prefer this thread went in the direction of people in the Temple telling me how I`ve fucked up rather than me failing to explain 80 year old physics in words..take it to the Lab. (I`m taking 99% of the blame for dragging this off topic)
 
 
Quantum
17:36 / 20.03.06
It's easy to get very confused in either of these fields, almost inevitable when discussing both.

The entanglement effect, observer principle and so on are all only micro-level phenomena, not seen in our macro world, but the fact is that many of the 'laws of nature' we take for granted simply do not apply on a subatomic scale. What if we were to discover that higher-dimensional phenomena also followed counterintuitive rules, and that those dimensions intersect with our macro world and had observable effects?
More importantly, if strikingly different scientific explanations of the world can be reconciled (QM and Newtonian mechanics say) because of their utility, that is a move we could (and do) make in magic. It becomes more acceptable to utilise the 'toolbox' metaphor regarding magical beliefs if you can point at physics as a role model.

Not sure how clear I'm being. What I wanted to say was
1) we can use similar conceptual moves in magic as in science
2) QM is a great metaphor for magic and many magical concepts are found in subatomic physics
3) QM and recent physical theory provide evidence for underlying physical laws that could one day explain *how* magic works more clearly, how our conscious minds affect the world.

I'm especially interested in 3), the direct implications of quantum physics discoveries on our understanding of how magic works.
 
 
E. Coli from the Milky Way
13:18 / 17.04.06
Hi Quantum! I'm interested in what you said on 3). I've been surfing on Larry Dossey's theories about non-local mind, Bell's theorem and things like that. What are your thougts about the point? Can you recommend any book to read about that kind of things?
 
 
Henningjohnathan
15:22 / 17.04.06
I agree that there are definitely similar approaches in the scientific thought surrounding the cutting edge of scientific research, especially quantum physics and information theory, and mystical thought in magick and spirituality. However, I don't believe that there is a direct connection between them. In other words, they are metaphorically approximate, but it would be false to claim that magick affects the world on a quantum level or that quantum physics is magical.
 
 
SteppersFan
07:47 / 18.04.06
Great content in this thread.

Surprised no-one's mentioned RAW yet, though he's a red rag to a bull to many occultists these days . RAW has a fairly specific interpretation of QM and how it provides a theoretical basis for magic. Or at least he did in the 70s and 80s. He understands QM and I don't so I won't try to provide a summary. However, I think that the influence of QM on magical thought is pretty much zetetic; to put it bluntly, the "message" of QM is, "don't let the accepted wisdom of scientific materialism put you off doing magic". For whilst QM may or may not provide an empirical or theoretical framework for doing magic, what it certainly does demonstrate is that dominant scientific paradigms change radically over time, and may get weirder, so magic might get a scientific foundation some day.

Personally I find scientific expalantions for magic fascinating, useful, and quite unnecessary.

I liked the Tao of Physics book 20 years ago. Haven't read it recently.

One last thing: both QM and Crowley's stuff happened at the same time, early 1900s - something in the air? An old idea...
 
 
Henningjohnathan
14:00 / 18.04.06
I think Frank Tipler (THE PHYSICS OF IMMORTALITY) once said that unless it's all total nonsense (angels, gods, demons), theology would one have to become a branch of science. You could say the same of Magick, but I don't Tipler comprehended the concept that something could be "real" (have a perceptible existence) without being "material" having a physically describable or comprehensible form. I think that he would see the immaterial as "nonsense" or consider that the spiritual would be solely "imaginary" if it did not exert a direct material influence on the world.

Personally, I believe that the imaginary is often more real to us than the material and certainly most things in our daily existence are actually the manifestation of immaterial ideas. Even the trees I see in the city were either planted there or are part of a city plan. We live in an artificial environment that is driven as much by human ideas as by random material "nature."
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply