Vimal, empirical tests of your theories

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vimal,

Although I have not read your papers yet, I am reading with lot of interest your debate with Vinodji. In one of the replies, you are suggesting that empirical tests will decide between the three models. I wonder what they are. Have you discussed these in any of the papers? If I understand you are talking about many non-empirical things. So how would the empirical tests decide these? Most people would agree that quantum mechanics (not interpretations) have passed empirical tests with flying colors.

Another question I have posed to some members before: For a single observer, result of a single quantum measurement is surely subjective and perhaps random. However, by the time you have data on millions and billions of identically prepared systems, all observers agree on the final statistical result. Quantum mechanics would not have been science without this fact. So how do you explain change from subjectivity to objectivity and consensus?

Best Regards.

kashyap

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Kashyap ji,

Thanks for your interest.

1. You have raised an important issue. Susskind argues that Bell’s inequality is based on the classical logic; QM is based on quantum logic; so with or without experiments, Bell’s inequality will be violated. Therefore, we need to derive Bell's like inequality based on the quantum-logic. The classical logic and quantum logic are of different kinds; it is a category mistake to use the former for investigating the latter. Do we have a violation of Bell’s inequality in CM? The answer is No. So far, QM experiments are based on classical logic; so it obvious they will fail Bell’s inequality. Therefore, I suggest that QM experiments should be based on quantum logic to test QM.

For testing the inseparability of mental and physical aspects in the eDAM (extended dual-aspect monism), please see Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015g). 

For testing hypothesis related to OBEs in the atheist and theist versions of the eDAM, I proposed 3 experiments; perhaps you might have seen them in my one of the previous emails.

 

2. ('t Hooft, 2015) proposes that QM is a tool, rather than theory of physics. I follow him. It is possible to derive MIR-objectivity from MDR-subjectivity and vice-versa. [MIR: mind-independent reality; MDR: mind-dependent reality]. If you have time and patience to read, I can email you the relevant sections of my e-book (Vimal, 2017) “Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in extended Dual-Aspect Monism: Bringing Relativity and QM closer”, which is under preparation.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

----------------------------------------------------------

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/51c1663e33dd4d5c91a5650d4ab41e93%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vimalji,

Thanks. Yes. I am interested in understanding how you are using ‘t Hooft’s ideas. Please mail the relevant sections to either Sadhu-Sanga address or my e-mail vasa...@iupui.edu.

In general I would say that the whole field is in a confused status! Weinberg says that he does not believe in any interpretation. In fact he tried his hand at introducing non-linear terms in QM and apparently gave up. Lot of  people say that linear QM works so beautifully, why try to fix what is not broken!! If we cannot interpret it in terms of our everyday life, that is a secondary problem. Anyway ‘t Hooft is also a Nobel laureate and a great physicist. So one has to pay attention to what he says. It will also be interesting to see what inequalities are derived based on quantum logic. Apparently Leggett has some inequalities and there is also an upper bound to violations ( I forget who derived that) , which agrees with the experiment.

Of course , since you are trying to understand consciousness and quantum mechanics together, it is much bigger and harder issue than just role of QM in physical universe.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vimalji,

After I sent a reply to your e-mail, I remembered about a Wayne State neuroscientist (neuro-physiologist) Donald Gracia who is interested in consciousness, Vedanta, Patanjali,  IIT , modern physics etc. He is not a member of this group. He thinks Tononi’s  IIT is not right. Can I mail him this reference (Vimal,2015g)?  Perhaps he may have some thoughts on this.

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal [mailto:rlpv...@yahoo.co.in]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 12:01 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Rael Cahn <rael...@usc.edu>; Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Vimal, empirical tests of your theories

 

Dear Kashyap ji,

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Kashyap ji,

Sure, please email to him and CC to me as well. I would like to have his comments. 

I am working on the manuscript you requested in the previous email related to details of eDAM's interpretation of QM. I will email it to you ASAP.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

----------------------------------------------------------

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Kashyap ji,

Thanks.

Kashyap V. Vasavada (17 June 2017)

Thanks. Yes. I am interested in understanding how you are using ‘t Hooft’s ideas. In general, I would say that the whole field is in a confused status! Weinberg says that he does not believe in any interpretation. In fact, he tried his hand at introducing non-linear terms in QM and apparently gave up. Lot of people say that linear QM works so beautifully, why try to fix what is not broken!! If we cannot interpret it in terms of our everyday life, that is a secondary problem. Anyway ‘t Hooft is also a Nobel laureate and a great physicist. So one has to pay attention to what he says. It will also be interesting to see what inequalities are derived based on quantum logic. Apparently Leggett has some inequalities and there is also an upper bound to violations (I forget who derived that), which agrees with the experiment. Of course, since you are trying to understand consciousness and quantum mechanics together, it is much bigger and harder issue than just role of QM in physical universe.

Vimal

If linear QM can explain the data then non-linear QM should be avoided as per Occam Razor. My understanding of ('t Hooft, 2015) is that underneath probabilistic QM, he proposes deterministic physics similar to classical physics, which implies 3 levels of physics. Measurements entail uncertainty, probability and superposition. If we do not make measurement, as was over 10 billion years after Big Bang when we were not present, then a particle should follow deterministic physics. This was the basis for the eDAM-MIR-DI. However, we do not know if the world out there is really deterministic in MIR, so to be safe side, we should develop stochastic interpretation in MIR. This was the basis of the eDAM-MIR-PI. If we would like to minimize our own ignorance (like a gyāni), we should include ourselves in the measurement. This was the basis of the eDAM-MDR-MTI.

 

As per (Leggett & Garg, 1985), “It is shown that, in the context of an idealized ‘macroscopic quantum coherence’ experiment, the predictions of quantum mechanics are incompatible with the conjunction of two general assumptions which are designated ‘macroscopic realism’ and ‘noninvasive measurability at the macroscopic level.’  The conditions under which quantum mechanics can be tested against these assumptions in a realistic experiment are discussed.”

 

As per Wikipedia (as of 18 June 2017), “In quantum mechanics, the Leggett–Garg inequality is violated, meaning that the time evolution of a system cannot be understood classically. The situation is similar to the violation of Bell's inequalities in Bell test experiments which plays an important role in understanding the nature of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox.”

 

As per Wikipedia (as of 18 June 2017), “The Leggett inequalities [(Leggett, 2003)] are violated by quantum mechanical theory. The results of experimental tests in 2007 [(Groblacher et al., 2007)] and 2010 [(Romero et al., 2010)] have shown agreement with quantum mechanics rather than the Leggett inequalities [].^[2][3] Given that experimental tests of Bell's inequalities have ruled out local realism in quantum mechanics, the violation of Leggett's inequalities is considered to have falsified realism in quantum mechanics.^[4] In quantum mechanics "realism" means "notion that physical systems possess complete sets of definite values for various parameters prior to, and independent of, measurement".^[5]” It seems that Leggett inequalities are also based on classical logic like Bell’s inequalities because they are also violated by QM experiments. These experiments also imply that local realism is ruled out in QM, i.e., micro-entities are non-local and unreal. This is misleading information as there are four justifications against this. 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

----------------------------------------------------------

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/387455695.120075.1497672057206%40mail.yahoo.com.