This is a contribution I made to a String forum on Mystics and Metaphysics in answer to a question as to whether or not string theory will illuminate the Hindu proposition that all is illusion. I think this forum is also appropriate for such a discussion. The post does allude that religion can contribute to science, a point often dismissed on this forum.

Particles as illusion

I do not think string theory will answer the illusion issue. Strings are particles. And the illusion is that particles exist.
I think the answer lies in the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is all about fields or waves which are invisible. We do not see them. But they are reality. They are essentially all that exist.
Particles manifest when fields interact nonlinearly. But the particles, which actually may only be a mathematical representation, only exist for a Planck time. The rest of the time, which is essentially all time, they exist as fields and are invisible.
Therefore the visible world is an illusion. The real world is invisible to us. Or at least most of us. The Autobiography of a Yogi points out that the Yogi's master could see the real world and could help the Yogi see it. But as far as I can tell, the Yogi could never do it on his own. So there is perhaps only a handful, if that, of humans that can see the real world at any one time.
The problem is that there are so many interpretations of quantum mechanics, that it is not obvious at all from science alone which one is likely to be the correct one. It takes science plus religion to do that. That is why I post on this forum.

• Religious doctrine does not contribute to scientific knowledge - johnpowell - April 10, 2001 - 17:34 UTC
• Richard, what do you call "illusion"? - alexander - April 10, 2001 - 18:29 UTC
  • Definition - yanniru - April 10, 2001 - 19:53 UTC
    • Atom is pure illusion then. - alexander - April 10, 2001 - 21:52 UTC
      • We only interact with electrons - yanniru - April 11, 2001 - 00:21 UTC
        • Incorrect, volume of electron is less than 10^-54 m^3 - alexander - April 11, 2001 - 17:21 UTC
          • Your numbers disagree with quantum mechanics - yanniru - April 12, 2001 - 03:48 UTC