RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Bob,

Thanks for a detailed reply. Yes. Feel free to e-mail your book to vasa...@iupui.edu. I will read it (it may take some time), keep it confidential and provide some feedback with a warning that I never took a single course in philosophy in my life and my knowledge of Vedanta is also cursory!

As you know, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of mankind. The agreement with experiments is more than 1 part per billion. The cell phone in your pocket is a glowing tribute to it! And yet, debates about interpretation are going on for some 90 years without any resolution. In fact some Nobel laureates like Weinberg and ‘t Hooft do not believe in any interpretation! The reason for majority believing in Copenhagen interpretation is that it is mostly epistemological. Physicists in general do not like to talk about ontological things because these are overreaching the implications of experiments and epistemological interpretation is lot safer in terms of just inferring what experiments mean. It may very well be that this is the limitation of science.

Bohm’s interpretation (theory) has to agree with experiments and well established theory like theory of relativity. If they have to make it highly non-linear in disagreement with experiments, that would be bad news for the theory. If Bohm’s interpretation is the only one which agrees with Vedanta, then we have to think seriously about the meaning of all this. Scientists are not going to buy that argument. Before we look at extra sensory things, the model has to explain sensory data.

As I mentioned in my article, Adi Shankaracharya’s  “Brahm Satyam, Jagat Mithya” sounds good to me. Modern physics already shows the Jagat Mithya  in the sense that the world is made out of fuzzy wave-particle stuff and not illusory rigid material we see around! Physics is not yet at the stage of Brahm Satyam!

I have high respect for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Prof. John Hagelin and I am somewhat familiar with his mathematical model of unified field. I talked to John Hagelin once at a conference. He is certainly very intelligent and honest physicist. TM practice is surely good for body and mind of the practitioner. But that and decrease of crime etc. do not prove anything about unified field. I like the idea of unified field though. In fact in my article I went even further in the sense that some kind of primitive consciousness may be present in every fundamental particle. I would like to have a theory such that consciousness is present to varying degree in  everything, starting with particles, rocks, plants, bacteria and finally  in Human beings. This would be a bottom up rather than top down model and consistent with Vedantic idea of universal consciousness.  I do not know how to prove it. Otherwise I would buy a plane ticket to Stockholm!!

Yes. It would be nice to continue this discussion. I would like to know about feelings of various members of this group about Bohm’s model.

 

 

From: Robert Boyer [mailto:rw.b...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 11:41 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

 

Dear Kashyap,

Thanks for your very relevant question, and for your deep pursuit of physics, Vedanta, consciousness.

My most recent book, almost finalized (Pointless: The Reality Behind Quantum Theory), would perhaps be the best one to address your question. I would be willing to email you a confidential draft copy if you wanted to look at it and give me any feedback. I will respond to your question briefly here now, however, perhaps with at least something useful. The angle is in the category of philosophy of physics rather than physics/mathematics. My background is in psychology and Vedic Science.

Though incomplete/inadequate as a mathematical model, Bohm’s interpretation seems to me to be in the best direction of the major interpretations (all of which are outlined in the book), especially because he and Hiley addressed quantum theory with what they called the “Ontological Interpretation,’ the key issue that other interpretations have mostly glossed over (especially the inadequacies of ‘instantaneous collapse’ and no ‘real’ existence of consciousness and mind in the Copenhagen interpretation). At least Bohm-Hiley proposed a ‘three-level’ model (explicate, implicate, super-implicate or “universal plenum”) that seems closer to the holistic Vedic 3-in-1 model, necessary for a logically consistent view of causal dynamics for mind-over-matter and free will. Like many models, Bohm-Hiley ‘neorealism’ is not worked out in terms of all the mathematics—indeed I take it that it will be quite difficult to do, especially with non-linear and subtle nonlocal processes. All the major models are useful steps, but in my view neorealism is further along as a conceptual model. However, yes their model does, and has to, go beyond relativity theory and this is a gigantic concern for physicalists. Also, the Bohm-Hiley interpretation conflates mind and consciousness.

The fact that more physicists prefer the Copenhagen interpretation is, in my view, due to not addressing ontological issues of additional levels of nature (because of severe reluctance to go beyond physicalism). However (also in the book), in addition to Bohm-Hiley, models by Penrose, Stapp, Tegmark, and Hagelin are clearly in the direction of three ontological levels. I try to fill in some of the gaps in the book.

The idea that Vedant is more aligned with the non-ontological interpretation of quantum theory (quantum waves as conceptual and not ‘real’) is, again in my view, a misinterpretation of Vedant. It is applying the experiential reality of unity in Vedant to views of nature at lesser evolved states of consciousness and their corresponding experiences. Sankhya provides a very useful model of levels of nature that facilitates progress in understanding toward Vedant. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has discussed these points beautifully, and my latest book addresses them in depth—but the issues are quite subtle.

Hopefully we can continue our dialogue. Best wishes,

Bob (RW Boyer)

[Robert Boyer]

Kashyap,

A few points in response to your email today. I'll send the manuscript draft of Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory. (Of course, ‘pointless’ is a play on words that in this case means beyond all intellectual discrimination— transcending the intellect to pure consciousness itself, samadhi.)

The book starts with the same recognition you mention—QT as the most successful theory in modern science.

You’ll find an interesting and quite subtle angle re: Einstein Relativity and local causality limited by light-speed being applicable only to the ‘gross’ physical level of nature (Bohm’s explicate order, not the ‘implicate order’ that Bohm associates with the nonlocal psi wave and to some degree individual minds). There also are subtle points on the nature of levels of mind, inflationary cosmology, and the relationship of mahabhutas and fundamental fields in physics.

Yes, granted the Bohm-Hiley ontological interpretation needs to agree with experiments, but all the mathematics are not worked out, and I don’t evaluate this as being a critical failing of it. But also, I recognize that the interpretation/ theory is still far from the ‘whole story’—which experiments also don’t yet test, though good steps have been taken beyond the physical, such as with nonlocality (entanglement, etc.). I take Bohm-Hiley theory as useful, and perhaps the most useful as steps toward a more comprehensive conceptualization that allows for mind over matter necessary for free will. It is more in the direction of the ontological levels of nature in Sankhya, associated with stages of understanding toward higher states of consciousness, in some sense less unified than the more advanced unity of Vedant. (Physical science is most associated with the ordinary waking state, with object independence and subject/object duality). But the Bohm-Hiley interpretation, as well as all the others of QT, don’t ‘explain’ sensory data, if we mean by this not just the concept of ‘objective empirical results of experiments’ but the deeper meaning of actual conscious empirical experience. Again, for this the Sankhya model of levels of mind (the 8-fold Prakriti, which is also part of the 10 mandals of Rk-Ved), is a useful ontology, and this goes far beyond any classical or quantum theory that includes quantum mind (discussed a lot, and quite subtly in the book). So yes, physics (and neuroscience and psychology) are far from Brahm Satyam; but also, Jagat Mithya is not understood in terms of states of consciousness either. As Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has pointed out, “knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.” In ordinary waking, the physical is relatively the most ‘real.’ In higher states of consciousness, the subtle level (conceptually glimpsed in Bohm’s ‘implicate order’) is experienced as relatively more ‘real,’ and the unity of Vedant is the ‘only reality’ in the highest state, Brahman. In other words, we could say as with QT and some interpretations of Vedant that particles have no ‘real’ properties; but the point here is that it is more coherent and useful to think in terms of particles as having relatively ‘real’ physical properties, underlain by relatively more ‘real’ nonlocal wave dynamics, ultimately nothing other than phenomenal fluctuations of the unified field of consciousness itself as the ‘only reality.’ Mithya relates to being both ‘real’ and ‘unreal,’ depending on the perspective of the state of consciousness of the observer.

As to consciousness as in everything, yes I certainly can agree with this, but not as in interpretations of this point such as Hameroff and Penrose’s ‘Orch-OR theory’ or some panpsychism views that the underlying consciousness is some dull, primitive initial awareness that somehow builds up into conscious cognitions in humans. These kinds of ‘bottom-up’ views fundamentally seem to be a severe misunderstanding of the Vedic account of consciousness as the underlying 'top-down wholeness' and perfect orderliness of the totality of nature. Again, I try to fill in the gaps in the book, including offering a new ‘holistic’ interpretation of quantum theory (which by the way, also consistent with Bohm-Hiley, does not rely on retrocausality to interpret QT). There are some fun and important points to ponder as we begin to recognize the ultimate of being 'pointless.'

Thanks for having these interactions. Best wishes,

Bob

---

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 1:39 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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/21611e5835de48278d8db7295a9ab514%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Asingh2384]

Hi Bob:

Agree.

The universal model of matter, mind, and consciousness presented in my earlier posted paper vindicates your statement below as well as predicts the observed empirical universe:

“As Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has pointed out, “knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.” In ordinary waking, the physical is relatively the most ‘real.’ In higher states of consciousness, the subtle level (conceptually glimpsed in Bohm’s ‘implicate order’) is experienced as relatively more ‘real,’ and the unity of Vedant is the ‘only reality’ in the highest state, Brahman. In other words, we could say as with QT and some interpretations of Vedant that particles have no ‘real’ properties; but the point here is that it is more coherent and useful to think in terms of particles as having relatively ‘real’ physical properties, underlain by relatively more ‘real’ nonlocal wave dynamics, ultimately nothing other than phenomenal fluctuations of the unified field of consciousness itself as the ‘only reality.’ Mithya relates to being both ‘real’ and ‘unreal,’ depending on the perspective of the state of consciousness of the observer.”

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1227727669.250548.1495547680400%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JACK SARFATTI]

Trying to reconcile modern physics with ancient spiritual doctrines Eastern or Western is not useful for the progress of our understanding of reality. At best it is a diversion, at worst it leads to fake science. For the record, I regret (as a naive young man) having played a pivotal role in such books as Space-Time and Beyond, Tao of Physics, and The Dancing Wu Li Masters (see David Kaiser's two books How the Hippies Saved Physics and Groovy Science for that story) in misleading millions of New Age progressives in that direction.

On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, 'Robert Boyer' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Kashyap,

A few points in response to your email today. I'll send the manuscript draft of Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory. (Of course, ‘pointless’ is a play on words that in this case means beyond all intellectual discrimination— transcending the intellect to pure consciousness itself, samadhi.)

The book starts with the same recognition you mention—QT as the most successful theory in modern science.

You’ll find an interesting and quite subtle angle re: Einstein Relativity and local causality limited by light-speed being applicable only to the ‘gross’ physical level of nature (Bohm’s explicate order, not the ‘implicate order’ that Bohm associates with the nonlocal psi wave and to some degree individual minds). There also are subtle points on the nature of levels of mind, inflationary cosmology, and the relationship of mahabhutas and fundamental fields in physics.

Yes, granted the Bohm-Hiley ontological interpretation needs to agree with experiments, but all the mathematics are not worked out, and I don’t evaluate this as being a critical failing of it.

The above is not correct. Refutation is in these papers.

Showing results 1 through 6 (of 6 total) for all:(Roderick AND Sutherland)

1.  arXiv:1509.07380 [pdf]

Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density

Roderick Sutherland

Comments: 6 pages

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

2.  arXiv:1509.02442 [pdf]

Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case

Roderick Sutherland

Comments: 34 pages

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

3.  arXiv:1509.00001 [pdf]

Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction

Roderick Sutherland

Comments: 9 pages

Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)

4.  arXiv:1502.02058 [pdf]

Naive Quantum Gravity

Roderick I. Sutherland

Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

5.  arXiv:1411.3762 [pdf]

Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case

Roderick I. Sutherland

Comments: 12 pages

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

6.  arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 [pdf]

Causally Symmetric Bohm Model

Rod Sutherland

Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

[JACK SARFATTI]

PQM allows effective "hyper-computation" with CTCs because of ER = EPR duality. This corresponds to Roger Penrose's "non-algorithmic non-computability" for intuitive consciousness (Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem brain presponse, precognitive remote viewing of Puthoff-Targ CIA SRI experiments etc see Annie Jacobsen's Phenomena).

"Thermodynamics of Time Machines

Michael Devin

Abstract

In this note, a brief review of the consistent state approach to systems containing closed timelike curves[CTCs] or similar devices is given, and applied to the well known thermodynamic problem of Maxwell’s demon. The ’third party paradox’ for acausal systems is defined and applied to closed timelike curve censorship and black hole evaporation. Some traditional arguments for chronology protection are re-examined. ...

In some of the cases considered in general relativity, with back reactions ignored, we find that CTCs and other time machines act like systems that do not need to borrow from anywhere to have energy. The number of accessible states grows exponentially with energy, and with all microstates equally probable, we naturally arrive at a negative temperature. A similar argument may be used for particle number to give negative chemical potential to the occupation numbers of each field mode. If the number of particles or energy is not somehow bounded then a divergence can result. This is especially the case when we have the internal entropy naturally maximized by eliminating the interaction of the time machine with its environment due to ignoring back reaction.

The appearance of these divergences is often cited as support for Hawking’s chronology protection conjecture[7, 8]. It is assumed that the fluctuations must destroy the time machine before anything improper can occur. However, if this is the case, then it provides the very mechanism for making time machines well behaved entities with positive temperature. The higher the energy or occupation number of a particular field mode in a time machine, the more it is suppressed by the re-weighting of histories by the amplitude for such a high energy state to scatter onto the same state. In post-selected language the sample of high energy states acceptable to post selection is small because high energy modes tend to decay, and high particle number states tend to dissipate, with exponential probability.  ...

In regards to the computational power of computers with access to time machines, it is straightforward to see that any computation in which an efficient method for checking the solution exists, a source of random bits, sent through a checking algorithm which then acts as a c-not on a time machine qubit, can arrive at the correct solution immediately if the informational content of the solution is sufficiently less than the work function of the time machine. Since time machine bits may also act as perfectly random sources, the information may seem to be created from nothing, but one may also think of such ‘calculations’ as becoming an extremely lucky guesser, due to the re-weighting of histories by the time machine.

Essentially time machines are entropy pumps, similar to a classical heat engine. Instead of transporting heat, they transport entropy, pushing a system of particles or a random message in message space into a lower entropy state, but increasing the entropy of the environment in some way not yet understood. The computations, like those of a true quantum computer, are essentially analog computations. In this case effectively physically reversing classical hard problems in time. Conventional crytpography would pose little obstacle to such a computer. Instead one would have to devise ambiguous codes, which could be decoded into a number of intelligible but incorrect messages, leaving the computer with a problem of interpreting which was significant, a task made hard for entirely different reasons. A ‘brute force’ entropy attack assisted by a time machine would then more likely generate one of the red-herring messages. Other unusual protocalls might be used to increase security, but public key certification by computer would be almost useless." 

to be continued

[JACK SARFATTI]

QM (non-conscious AI) computers like D-Wave are more powerful than current-day Classical (non-conscious AI) Computers (C Computers).

However, technological surprise is that PQM (effective CTC) non-algorithmic conscious AI  "computers" are more powerful than QM computers.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-2216674.htm

D-Wave $50M Facility to Fund Next Generation of Quantum Computers

Capital will support delivery of real-world quantum computing applications

BURNABY, BC--(Marketwired - May 16, 2017) - D-Wave Systems Inc., the leader in quantum computing systems and software, today announced that it has received new capital in the form of convertible notes from the Public Sector Pension Investment Board ("PSP Investments"). PSP Investments funded US$30 million at closing, with an additional US$20 million available at D-Wave's option upon the achievement of certain milestones. This facility brings D-Wave's total funding to approximately US$200 million. The new capital is expected to enable D-Wave to deploy its next-generation quantum computing system with more densely-connected qubits, as well as platforms and products for machine learning applications.

"This commitment from PSP Investments is a strong validation of D-Wave's leadership in quantum computing," said Vern Brownell, CEO of D-Wave. "While other organizations are researching quantum computing and building small prototypes in the lab, the support of our customers and investors enables us to deliver quantum computing technology for real-world applications today. In fact, we've already demonstrated practical uses of quantum computing with innovative companies like Volkswagen. This new investment provides a solid base as we build the next generation of our technology." 

This latest funding comes on the heels of significant momentum for D-Wave. Milestones achieved so far in 2017 include: 

• The D-Wave 2000Q™ quantum computer launched with first customer D-Wave launched a new computing system with 2000 qubits, enabling faster performance, and providing a major step toward production applications in optimization, cybersecurity, machine learning, and sampling. Cybersecurity company Temporal Defense Systems purchased the first D-Wave 2000Q system. 
  
  
• Cooperation with Virginia Tech D-Wave established a joint effort with Virginia Tech's Hume Center for National Security and Technology to provide greater access to quantum computers for researchers from the U.S. Intelligence Community and Department of Defense. 
  
  
• Google, NASA, and USRA elected to upgrade their D-Wave 2X™ quantum computer to the new D-Wave 2000Q system, to support their pioneering research on how quantum computing can be applied to artificial intelligence, machine learning, and difficult optimization problems. 
  
  
• Volkswagen traffic flow optimization project VW and D-Wave completed a joint project using a D-Wave quantum computer to optimize traffic flows, using data from 10,0000 taxis in Beijing, China. This project makes VW the first automaker to use quantum computers, and marks a promising step forward for practical quantum computing applications. 
  
  
• D-Wave initiated an open quantum software environment with the release of qbsolv, an open-source quantum software tool that enables developers to build higher-level tools and applications leveraging the quantum computing power of D-Wave's systems, without the need to understand the complex physics of quantum computers.
  
  

About D-Wave Systems Inc.
D-Wave is the leader in the development and delivery of quantum computing systems and software, and the world's only commercial supplier of quantum computers. Our mission is to unlock the power of quantum computing for the world. We believe that quantum computing will enable solutions to the most challenging national defense, scientific, technical, and commercial problems. D-Wave's systems are being used by some of the world's most advanced organizations, including Lockheed Martin, Google, NASA Ames, USRA, USC, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Temporal Defense Systems. With headquarters near Vancouver, Canada, D-Wave's U.S. operations are based in Palo Alto, CA and Hanover, MD. D-Wave has a blue-chip investor base including PSP Investments, Goldman Sachs, Bezos Expeditions, DFJ, In-Q-Tel, BDC Capital, Growthworks, 180 Degree Capital Corp., International Investment and Underwriting, and Kensington Partners Limited. For more information, visit: www.dwavesys.com.

[JACK SARFATTI]

"III. UNITARITY

To new students of quantum mechanics, the Bell inequalities, delayed choice, and quantum eraser experiments have seemed to almost violate causality. The fact that they cannot is a crucial consequence of the unitary nature of quantum mechanics. One of the most troubling aspects of the information loss paradox is the apparent loss of unitarity. Not all non-unitary maps are created equal, and trace over models of lossy processes do generally preserve causality. Such models seemed adequate until Hawking radiation came along. The eventual disintegration of the hole broke the analogy of environmental decoherence opening up the possibility of ‘bad’ nonunitary processes in some imagined acausal lossy theory of quantum gravity. The aim of the remaining sections is to explore implications of this possibility."

JS: PQM is a "bad" non-unitary extension of unitary QM.

The Bohmian "particles" (more generally "beables" for field theory) are a source and sink for the pilot waves causing non-conservation of their current densities and, therefore, allowing globally consistent (I. Novikov) causality violations (keyless locally retrocausal locally decodable entanglement messaging).

"A quantum eraser is a system that exhibits extreme nature of the delayed choice experiment by measuring and then coherently erasing information about two different possible paths for a system. By the no-copy theorem a qubit that is created by measuring another qubit can only be coherently erased by combining it with the original again. Coherent erasure makes the erased bit ‘unrecoverable in principle’ and thus restores interference effects relating to any superposition of the original bit before the creation of the measurement bit. Two concerns in the information paradox were first, that an evaporated black hole might constitute an ‘in principle unrecoverable’ process, and second that proposed complementarity scenarios would violate the no-copy theorem, providing another way to erase measurements. 

Both cases lead to breakdown of unitarity and subsequently causality. Complementarity has to ensure the second scenario of a bit meeting its extra twin can not occur. This appears to be the primary motivation for the recent ’firewall’ models of black hole evaporation.

The inherent non-unitarity of time machines can easily be seen by observing the effect that this probability skewing has on entangled particle pairs. Consider instead of a particle in a box, the classic spin entangled pairs of particles. If we should choose one of the entangled particles to be sent an arbitrary distance away, then use the other as a control bit in our time machine circuit, then the state of the pair becomes in general a mixed state. If we designate a second communication channel to act as the control of another c-not gate on the time machine bit, then we may measure a real correlation between that channel and the spin measurements of the distant spin partner. A single time machine as a third party in the mutual future of two observers can apparently effect nonlocal communication between them. Thus the non-unitary effects of a time machine may be felt arbitrarily far away, even in the past light cone of the arrival of ψout." 

to be continued

[Don Salmon]

Jack, if you think that non-physicalist metaphysics has no role to play in science, do you think Michel Bibbol's 'Is Consciousness Primary?" is equally misguided as the authors and books you mention?

http://www.remember-to-breathe.org/Breathing-Videos.html 

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:16 PM, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Trying to reconcile modern physics with ancient spiritual doctrines Eastern or Western is not useful for the progress of our understanding of reality. At best it is a diversion, at worst it leads to fake science. For the record, I regret (as a naive young man) having played a pivotal role in such books as Space-Time and Beyond, Tao of Physics, and The Dancing Wu Li Masters (see David Kaiser's two books How the Hippies Saved Physics and Groovy Science for that story) in misleading millions of New Age progressives in that direction.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/02E8ED3F-8F08-4641-8A89-6D76E39629A2%40aol.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Avtar,

I find the expression 'only reality' paradoxical. First, what is the criterion to demarcate the real from the unreal? Then which are the other realities that are discarded to get to the 'only' reality. It just sounds obscure to me. I wish you would explain.

Priyedarshi

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:34 PM, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hi Bob:

Agree.

The universal model of matter, mind, and consciousness presented in my earlier posted paper vindicates your statement below as well as predicts the observed empirical universe:

“As Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has pointed out, “knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.” In ordinary waking, the physical is relatively the most ‘real.’ In higher states of consciousness, the subtle level (conceptually glimpsed in Bohm’s ‘implicate order’) is experienced as relatively more ‘real,’ and the unity of Vedant is the ‘only reality’ in the highest state, Brahman. In other words, we could say as with QT and some interpretations of Vedant that particles have no ‘real’ properties; but the point here is that it is more coherent and useful to think in terms of particles as having relatively ‘real’ physical properties, underlain by relatively more ‘real’ nonlocal wave dynamics, ultimately nothing other than phenomenal fluctuations of the unified field of consciousness itself as the ‘only reality.’ Mithya relates to being both ‘real’ and ‘unreal,’ depending on the perspective of the state of consciousness of the observer.”

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Robert Boyer' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 23, 2017 8:15 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

Kashyap,

A few points in response to your email today. I'll send the manuscript draft of Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory. (Of course, ‘pointless’ is a play on words that in this case means beyond all intellectual discrimination— transcending the intellect to pure consciousness itself, samadhi.)

The book starts with the same recognition you mention—QT as the most successful theory in modern science.

You’ll find an interesting and quite subtle angle re: Einstein Relativity and local causality limited by light-speed being applicable only to the ‘gross’ physical level of nature (Bohm’s explicate order, not the ‘implicate order’ that Bohm associates with the nonlocal psi wave and to some degree individual minds). There also are subtle points on the nature of levels of mind, inflationary cosmology, and the relationship of mahabhutas and fundamental fields in physics.

Yes, granted the Bohm-Hiley ontological interpretation needs to agree with experiments, but all the mathematics are not worked out, and I don’t evaluate this as being a critical failing of it. But also, I recognize that the interpretation/ theory is still far from the ‘whole story’—which experiments also don’t yet test, though good steps have been taken beyond the physical, such as with nonlocality (entanglement, etc.). I take Bohm-Hiley theory as useful, and perhaps the most useful as steps toward a more comprehensive conceptualization that allows for mind over matter necessary for free will. It is more in the direction of the ontological levels of nature in Sankhya, associated with stages of understanding toward higher states of consciousness, in some sense less unified than the more advanced unity of Vedant. (Physical science is most associated with the ordinary waking state, with object independence and subject/object duality). But the Bohm-Hiley interpretation, as well as all the others of QT, don’t ‘explain’ sensory data, if we mean by this not just the concept of ‘objective empirical results of experiments’ but the deeper meaning of actual conscious empirical experience. Again, for this the Sankhya model of levels of mind (the 8-fold Prakriti, which is also part of the 10 mandals of Rk-Ved), is a useful ontology, and this goes far beyond any classical or quantum theory that includes quantum mind (discussed a lot, and quite subtly in the book). So yes, physics (and neuroscience and psychology) are far from Brahm Satyam; but also, Jagat Mithya is not understood in terms of states of consciousness either. As Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has pointed out, “knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.” In ordinary waking, the physical is relatively the most ‘real.’ In higher states of consciousness, the subtle level (conceptually glimpsed in Bohm’s ‘implicate order’) is experienced as relatively more ‘real,’ and the unity of Vedant is the ‘only reality’ in the highest state, Brahman. In other words, we could say as with QT and some interpretations of Vedant that particles have no ‘real’ properties; but the point here is that it is more coherent and useful to think in terms of particles as having relatively ‘real’ physical properties, underlain by relatively more ‘real’ nonlocal wave dynamics, ultimately nothing other than phenomenal fluctuations of the unified field of consciousness itself as the ‘only reality.’ Mithya relates to being both ‘real’ and ‘unreal,’ depending on the perspective of the state of consciousness of the observer.

As to consciousness as in everything, yes I certainly can agree with this, but not as in interpretations of this point such as Hameroff and Penrose’s ‘Orch-OR theory’ or some panpsychism views that the underlying consciousness is some dull, primitive initial awareness that somehow builds up into conscious cognitions in humans. These kinds of ‘bottom-up’ views fundamentally seem to be a severe misunderstanding of the Vedic account of consciousness as the underlying 'top-down wholeness' and perfect orderliness of the totality of nature. Again, I try to fill in the gaps in the book, including offering a new ‘holistic’ interpretation of quantum theory (which by the way, also consistent with Bohm-Hiley, does not rely on retrocausality to interpret QT). There are some fun and important points to ponder as we begin to recognize the ultimate of being 'pointless.'

Thanks for having these interactions. Best wishes,

Bob

---

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/1227727669.250548.1495547680400%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/15c360d48e8-378f-bc4f%40webprd-m59.mail.aol.com.

[Sunita Singh-Sengupta]

Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,

Wonderful sharing! Do you have any write up on levels of knowledge vis-a-vis level of consciousness. Will be glad to read it.

Sunita

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:34 PM, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hi Bob:

Agree.

The universal model of matter, mind, and consciousness presented in my earlier posted paper vindicates your statement below as well as predicts the observed empirical universe:

“As Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has pointed out, “knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.” In ordinary waking, the physical is relatively the most ‘real.’ In higher states of consciousness, the subtle level (conceptually glimpsed in Bohm’s ‘implicate order’) is experienced as relatively more ‘real,’ and the unity of Vedant is the ‘only reality’ in the highest state, Brahman. In other words, we could say as with QT and some interpretations of Vedant that particles have no ‘real’ properties; but the point here is that it is more coherent and useful to think in terms of particles as having relatively ‘real’ physical properties, underlain by relatively more ‘real’ nonlocal wave dynamics, ultimately nothing other than phenomenal fluctuations of the unified field of consciousness itself as the ‘only reality.’ Mithya relates to being both ‘real’ and ‘unreal,’ depending on the perspective of the state of consciousness of the observer.”

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Robert Boyer' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 23, 2017 8:15 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

Kashyap,

A few points in response to your email today. I'll send the manuscript draft of Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory. (Of course, ‘pointless’ is a play on words that in this case means beyond all intellectual discrimination— transcending the intellect to pure consciousness itself, samadhi.)

The book starts with the same recognition you mention—QT as the most successful theory in modern science.

You’ll find an interesting and quite subtle angle re: Einstein Relativity and local causality limited by light-speed being applicable only to the ‘gross’ physical level of nature (Bohm’s explicate order, not the ‘implicate order’ that Bohm associates with the nonlocal psi wave and to some degree individual minds). There also are subtle points on the nature of levels of mind, inflationary cosmology, and the relationship of mahabhutas and fundamental fields in physics.

Yes, granted the Bohm-Hiley ontological interpretation needs to agree with experiments, but all the mathematics are not worked out, and I don’t evaluate this as being a critical failing of it. But also, I recognize that the interpretation/ theory is still far from the ‘whole story’—which experiments also don’t yet test, though good steps have been taken beyond the physical, such as with nonlocality (entanglement, etc.). I take Bohm-Hiley theory as useful, and perhaps the most useful as steps toward a more comprehensive conceptualization that allows for mind over matter necessary for free will. It is more in the direction of the ontological levels of nature in Sankhya, associated with stages of understanding toward higher states of consciousness, in some sense less unified than the more advanced unity of Vedant. (Physical science is most associated with the ordinary waking state, with object independence and subject/object duality). But the Bohm-Hiley interpretation, as well as all the others of QT, don’t ‘explain’ sensory data, if we mean by this not just the concept of ‘objective empirical results of experiments’ but the deeper meaning of actual conscious empirical experience. Again, for this the Sankhya model of levels of mind (the 8-fold Prakriti, which is also part of the 10 mandals of Rk-Ved), is a useful ontology, and this goes far beyond any classical or quantum theory that includes quantum mind (discussed a lot, and quite subtly in the book). So yes, physics (and neuroscience and psychology) are far from Brahm Satyam; but also, Jagat Mithya is not understood in terms of states of consciousness either. As Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has pointed out, “knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.” In ordinary waking, the physical is relatively the most ‘real.’ In higher states of consciousness, the subtle level (conceptually glimpsed in Bohm’s ‘implicate order’) is experienced as relatively more ‘real,’ and the unity of Vedant is the ‘only reality’ in the highest state, Brahman. In other words, we could say as with QT and some interpretations of Vedant that particles have no ‘real’ properties; but the point here is that it is more coherent and useful to think in terms of particles as having relatively ‘real’ physical properties, underlain by relatively more ‘real’ nonlocal wave dynamics, ultimately nothing other than phenomenal fluctuations of the unified field of consciousness itself as the ‘only reality.’ Mithya relates to being both ‘real’ and ‘unreal,’ depending on the perspective of the state of consciousness of the observer.

As to consciousness as in everything, yes I certainly can agree with this, but not as in interpretations of this point such as Hameroff and Penrose’s ‘Orch-OR theory’ or some panpsychism views that the underlying consciousness is some dull, primitive initial awareness that somehow builds up into conscious cognitions in humans. These kinds of ‘bottom-up’ views fundamentally seem to be a severe misunderstanding of the Vedic account of consciousness as the underlying 'top-down wholeness' and perfect orderliness of the totality of nature. Again, I try to fill in the gaps in the book, including offering a new ‘holistic’ interpretation of quantum theory (which by the way, also consistent with Bohm-Hiley, does not rely on retrocausality to interpret QT). There are some fun and important points to ponder as we begin to recognize the ultimate of being 'pointless.'

Thanks for having these interactions. Best wishes,

Bob

---

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/1227727669.250548.1495547680400%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/15c360d48e8-378f-bc4f%40webprd-m59.mail.aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

		Prof. Sunita Singh-Sengupta
		Integrating Spirituality & Organisational Leadership
		Founder & Honorary Convener
		Tel: +91 98 73 16 74 84
		ISOL Foundation | ISOL Research Foundation

[Sunita Singh-Sengupta]

Dear Robert,

Great piece of write up.

I use Bohm's theory and integrate with Unified Field Theory of Maharishi where I taught a course to the Doctoral Students in June 2015.

Thank you !

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:24 PM, 'Robert Boyer' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Kashyap,

A few points in response to your email today. I'll send the manuscript draft of Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory. (Of course, ‘pointless’ is a play on words that in this case means beyond all intellectual discrimination— transcending the intellect to pure consciousness itself, samadhi.)

The book starts with the same recognition you mention—QT as the most successful theory in modern science.

You’ll find an interesting and quite subtle angle re: Einstein Relativity and local causality limited by light-speed being applicable only to the ‘gross’ physical level of nature (Bohm’s explicate order, not the ‘implicate order’ that Bohm associates with the nonlocal psi wave and to some degree individual minds). There also are subtle points on the nature of levels of mind, inflationary cosmology, and the relationship of mahabhutas and fundamental fields in physics.

Yes, granted the Bohm-Hiley ontological interpretation needs to agree with experiments, but all the mathematics are not worked out, and I don’t evaluate this as being a critical failing of it. But also, I recognize that the interpretation/ theory is still far from the ‘whole story’—which experiments also don’t yet test, though good steps have been taken beyond the physical, such as with nonlocality (entanglement, etc.). I take Bohm-Hiley theory as useful, and perhaps the most useful as steps toward a more comprehensive conceptualization that allows for mind over matter necessary for free will. It is more in the direction of the ontological levels of nature in Sankhya, associated with stages of understanding toward higher states of consciousness, in some sense less unified than the more advanced unity of Vedant. (Physical science is most associated with the ordinary waking state, with object independence and subject/object duality). But the Bohm-Hiley interpretation, as well as all the others of QT, don’t ‘explain’ sensory data, if we mean by this not just the concept of ‘objective empirical results of experiments’ but the deeper meaning of actual conscious empirical experience. Again, for this the Sankhya model of levels of mind (the 8-fold Prakriti, which is also part of the 10 mandals of Rk-Ved), is a useful ontology, and this goes far beyond any classical or quantum theory that includes quantum mind (discussed a lot, and quite subtly in the book). So yes, physics (and neuroscience and psychology) are far from Brahm Satyam; but also, Jagat Mithya is not understood in terms of states of consciousness either. As Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has pointed out, “knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.” In ordinary waking, the physical is relatively the most ‘real.’ In higher states of consciousness, the subtle level (conceptually glimpsed in Bohm’s ‘implicate order’) is experienced as relatively more ‘real,’ and the unity of Vedant is the ‘only reality’ in the highest state, Brahman. In other words, we could say as with QT and some interpretations of Vedant that particles have no ‘real’ properties; but the point here is that it is more coherent and useful to think in terms of particles as having relatively ‘real’ physical properties, underlain by relatively more ‘real’ nonlocal wave dynamics, ultimately nothing other than phenomenal fluctuations of the unified field of consciousness itself as the ‘only reality.’ Mithya relates to being both ‘real’ and ‘unreal,’ depending on the perspective of the state of consciousness of the observer.

As to consciousness as in everything, yes I certainly can agree with this, but not as in interpretations of this point such as Hameroff and Penrose’s ‘Orch-OR theory’ or some panpsychism views that the underlying consciousness is some dull, primitive initial awareness that somehow builds up into conscious cognitions in humans. These kinds of ‘bottom-up’ views fundamentally seem to be a severe misunderstanding of the Vedic account of consciousness as the underlying 'top-down wholeness' and perfect orderliness of the totality of nature. Again, I try to fill in the gaps in the book, including offering a new ‘holistic’ interpretation of quantum theory (which by the way, also consistent with Bohm-Hiley, does not rely on retrocausality to interpret QT). There are some fun and important points to ponder as we begin to recognize the ultimate of being 'pointless.'

Thanks for having these interactions. Best wishes,

Bob

---

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/21611e5835de48278d8db7295a9ab514%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/1227727669.250548.1495547680400%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Hi Jack (Sarfatti),

Physics (science) has made tremendous progress in understanding matter and energy during last several hundred years based on sensory experiments and models. From morning till evening we are reminded of this (just look at cell phone in everyone’s pockets!). But progress in understanding consciousness has been practically zero. That may be because consciousness is perhaps a borderline subject between sensory and non-sensory aspects of the universe. Scientists may not even want to admit that there could be a non-sensory world out there! But we scientists have to admit that science has limitations and perhaps it has hit a brick wall in connection with consciousness in using the highly successful scientific method. Now, whether ancient wisdom is useful or not may be a matter of opinion. As I mentioned in my article which was posted on this website, I am impressed by vision of Rishis who did not have experimental or mathematical apparatus. So in my discussion with Robert Boyer I expressed my belief that there is something in it. Whether that wisdom can solve problem of consciousness or not remains to be seen. But as long as purely scientific methods have not succeeded in understanding consciousness, this would be a useful activity.

 

 

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:17 PM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

 

Trying to reconcile modern physics with ancient spiritual doctrines Eastern or Western is not useful for the progress of our understanding of reality. At best it is a diversion, at worst it leads to fake science. For the record, I regret (as a naive young man) having played a pivotal role in such books as Space-Time and Beyond, Tao of Physics, and The Dancing Wu Li Masters (see David Kaiser's two books How the Hippies Saved Physics and Groovy Science for that story) in misleading millions of New Age progressives in that direction.

--

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/02E8ED3F-8F08-4641-8A89-6D76E39629A2%40aol.com.

[Asingh2384]

Hi Priyedarshi:

Relative (Maya) reality is temporal manifested reality changing in space-time.

Absolute (Satya) reality is un-manifested eternal and omnipresent not-changing in space-time. Religion calls it God.

Regards

Avtar

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
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/CAG9qgfDO5wRWWsihJnxS9gpvJ6M4fvzz4Kq-800r5-94UzfSoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Asingh2384]

Hi Sunita:

In scientific terms level of awareness is represented by the velocity (Gati) of thoughts. Enlightened mind is wherein thoughts have accelerated to the speed of light and dissolved to Shunya or Samadhi state. Thus velocity determines the level of consciousness as described in my attached paper.

Best Regards

Avtar

-----Original Message-----
From: Sunita Singh-Sengupta <sunita.sin...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, May 24, 2017 12:13 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,

Wonderful sharing! Do you have any write up on levels of knowledge vis-a-vis level of consciousness. Will be glad to read it.

Sunita

		Prof. Sunita Singh-Sengupta
		Integrating Spirituality & Organisational Leadership
		Founder & Honorary Convener
		Tel: +91 98 73 16 74 84
		ISOL Foundation | ISOL Research Foundation

--
----------------------------
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
 
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/CANR_v%3Dgcw7T5H4QCKELnWguPLu91bGRG36sQ%3DFth_TzTXRBEow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Boyer]

Priyedarshi Jetli,

Yes, the expression you took from my comment 'only reality' does seem quite paradoxical. It relates to the fundamental Vedic principle that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi brought  out: 'knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.' This principle concerns the state of the knower/scientist, and has been overlooked in modern science. In the ordinary waking state, the primary locus of experience of 'reality' is the material physical universe (this is called pragya aparadha, sometimes translated as the 'mistake of the intellect). The primary locus of experience matures in higher states, as relative degrees of 'reality' to the ultimate 'reality' associated with the Vedant Darshana. Not recognizing the advancing meanings of 'reality' with higher states has been a source of great confusion--as reflected in many contributions to this blog. Thank you for bringing up this very practical point.

Best wishes,

RW (Bob) Boyer 

---

From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 2:12 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 1227727669.250548. 1495547680400%40mail.yahoo.com .

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 15c360d48e8-378f-bc4f% 40webprd-m59.mail.aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
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
 
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/CAG9qgfDO5wRWWsihJnxS9gpvJ6M4fvzz4Kq-800r5-94UzfSoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Vasavada,

On 24 May 2017, at 15:37, Vasavada, Kashyap V wrote:

Hi Jack (Sarfatti),

Physics (science) has made tremendous progress in understanding matter and energy during last several hundred years based on sensory experiments and models. From morning till evening we are reminded of this (just look at cell phone in everyone’s pockets!). But progress in understanding consciousness has been practically zero. That may be because consciousness is perhaps a borderline subject between sensory and non-sensory aspects of the universe. Scientists may not even want to admit that there could be a non-sensory world out there!

With the notable exception of many mathematicians!

Some physicists, like David Deutsch, are so much physicalist that they put mathematics out of science. To me, like to Gauss; it is the queen of Science.

And consciousness, when we assume mechanism, is most plausibly related to the non sensory world of mathematics and thought, than physics.

Physics is not the science for consciousness. It think it is theology and psychology which can address that problem. With mechanism, the consciousness problem is basically translated, by mathematical logic, into the problem of reducing physics to Number theology. Physics can no be the fundamental science, and cannot even be invoked when working on the mind-body problem (in the mechanist frame). Indeed, there is an infinity of computation going through our mind (and residing in arithmetic), and we must explain the stability of the physical apperances by the logic of machine/number dreams. Apparently this works.

But we scientists have to admit that science has limitations and perhaps it has hit a brick wall in connection with consciousness in using the highly successful scientific method.

The beauty of (Gödel's) incompleteness, is that it shows that machines can study theor own limitations, and indeed, consciousness can enter in the scientific discourse by that door.

Now, whether ancient wisdom is useful or not may be a matter of opinion. As I mentioned in my article which was posted on this website, I am impressed by vision of Rishis who did not have experimental or mathematical apparatus. So in my discussion with Robert Boyer I expressed my belief that there is something in it. Whether that wisdom can solve problem of consciousness or not remains to be seen. But as long as purely scientific methods have not succeeded in understanding consciousness, this would be a useful activity.

Mechanism can explain why consciousness is a mystery, and why that is not a mystery. All machine looking inward deep enough discover that mystery, and understand compeletely why, if they are machine, it needs to be a mystery. 

Bruno Marchal

PS sorry for the problem with the mail. I might take some time to comment some posts.

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
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/fc85b2c2295e41928a8baa1d9eefc134%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Hi Avtar (Singh),

Please call me kashyap. Your comment to Bob is very interesting. I was arguing with Bob strictly from the point of view of a physicist. Overwhelming number of physicists reject Bohm’s hypothesis/theory/interpretation of an associated guiding wave.

To us in everyday life a table is real. Nobody would say it is a particle or a wave depending on your method of measurement. As you know fundamental particles are not like that. They do not have any properties before you measure. I am in the process of reading Bob’s book which he kindly sent to me. My point is that a physical theory has to agree with sensory data before we talk about non-sensory things. If Bohm’s current proponents can prove that, the theory would certainly win. Some time I also hope to read your papers. But your take on meaning of the word Mithya is also very interesting.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15c360d48e8-378f-bc4f%40webprd-m59.mail.aol.com.

[N.Panchapakesan]

Hi Bruno
I have been trying to follow your posts. I was
confused by the term mechanism. John explained it for
people not familiar with it like me. That was helpful. Now I have two
difficulties with your post.

The first is comparison of mathematics and physics. Mathematics
is a language , which is extremely useful in
physics and many other areas and totally indispensable. Like language
it has its own beauty and creativity. I do not see how everything can
be reduced to numbers, if I understand you right.

Second point; Are you saying that according to Godel, a machine
knows its own inconsistencies. I have probably misunderstood.

Regards

Panchu
N. Panchapakesan

New Delhi

> (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/ABFBEDA2-DEF0-4CEE-A94E-88C69D3C65EE%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi N. Panchapakesan,

On 25 May 2017, at 15:12, N.Panchapakesan wrote:

                   I have been trying to follow your posts.

Thanks.

I was
confused by the term mechanism.

I use mechanism to abbreviate digital mechanism. It is the assumption that we can be simulated by a computer, from a description of ourselves done at that level. The opposite of mechanism needs to invoke actual infinities in nature.

John explained it for
people not familiar with it like me. That was helpful.  Now I have two
difficulties with your post.

    The first is comparison of mathematics and physics. Mathematics
is a language ,

This the conventionalist position in philosophy of mathematics.  I consider it to be refuted  or to not make much sense. 

Once you agree with the simple axiomatic of natural numbers, you can define the prime numbers, and consecrate your life to the study of the distribution of the primes. That distribution, and more general behavior of numbers and other mathematical object is not conventional in that sense, and, this is a clue that there is a mathematical reality independent of us. 

which is extremely useful in
physics and many other areas and totally indispensable. Like language
it has its own beauty and creativity.

Logicians does metamathematics, and this forces them to carefully distinguish between the mathematical language, a theory written in that language, and the model of that theory. Theories are usually finite things, but the models, or semantics, are usually infinite.

Exemple:

The arithmetical language is the logical predicate language,

using &, V, ->, ~(not), the quantfier "E" (it exists), and "A" (for all).  

+ the non logical symbols 0, +, *, and s (intended to denote the successor operation, 0, s(0), s(s(s(0))), etc.

In that language you can define a prime number prime(x) <-> Ay (y divides x -> ((y = 1) V (y = x)), where (y divides x) can be defined by Ez(y * z = x)).

But you cannot prove that a prime number exists from just a language. You need a theory, for example:

the following axioms are known as Robinson Arithmetic (RA)  (that theory plays some special role in my approach):

0 ≠ s(x)                     (0 is not the successor of a number)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y     (different numbers have different successors)

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    (except for 0, all numbers have a predecessor)

x+0 = x                      (if you add zero to a number, you get that number)

x+s(y) = s(x+y)  (if you add a number x to a successor of a number y, you get the successor of x added to y)

x*0=0                   (if you multiply a number by 0, you get 0)

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x    (if you multiply a first number by a successor of a second number, you get that first number added to the multiplication of the first and seecond number)

In that theory, you can define *and* prove that prime numbers exist.

A model, or semantics, is defined in richer theory, like set theory, and a model of arithmetic is just a set, with some laws which verifies, in some technical sense, the axioms of the theory. In this case a simple model is the usual mathematical structure with the set N = {0, 1, 2, 3 ...}, with the usual addition and multiplication. 

I do not see how everything can
be reduced to numbers, if I understand you right.

The amazing, and not obvious at all point, is that the RA theory, which is a very weak theory (uou cannot even prove in that theory that 0 + x = x) can be proved "Turing complete". Whatever a computer can do, is entirely mirrored by some definable number relation already provable in that very weak theory.

So, all computations exist in arithmetic, and provably so in very weak theories. 

So, if we assume that the brain is Turing emulable (and does not invoke actual infinities, except some that we will still recover, to be precise), is already done, an infinity of times, in arithmetic. So arithmetic, assuming mechanism, contains a very gigantic and mathematically structured web of dreams, and the physical appearance should emerge from an internal statistics on all computations.

   Second point; Are you saying that according to Godel, a machine
knows its own inconsistencies. I have probably misunderstood.

Some machine can know that IF there are consistent then they cannot prove that their are consistent. Now machine can abductive inference (that is searchning theories to explain, notably, their own behavior). They can infer that they cannot prove their own consistency, by always failing on this, and eventually bet that the reason why they cannot prove their consistency, is that they are consistent. So, in that sense, machine can find some of their undecidable propositions,, and use them carefully or not (in which case they can become inconsistent).

I hope this helps. I am aware it is a difficult subject, and many use of Gödel's theorem if very often invalid, but not always.

Best Regards,

Bruno

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAC43-2Fe78yXscn2JPbcc7djx6459C-Un9_h%3DQu_NU0y_d2pxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[JACK SARFATTI]

[Robert Boyer]

Jack,

I'd like to be clearer about your comment that one of the statements in my recent email is "not correct." 

When I made the comment that in the Bohm-Hiley interpretation "all the mathematics are not worked out," I was referring to their concept of the nonlocal implicate order, which at times they also associate with their concept of the "psi wave." 

Are you are asserting that there is definitive mathematical refutation of the concept of the nonlocal implicate order?  

Please help me here; maybe your statement is referring to particular features of their mathematical approach to quantum theory--

to which I feel more comfortable agreeing with you. Thanks,

RW (Bob) Boyer

---

From: "'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Response to your question on Bohm's theory

--
----------------------------
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/936C9655-89E1-4EBA-AF49-353663E80823%40aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

On May 25, 2017, at 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Vasavada,

On 24 May 2017, at 15:37, Vasavada, Kashyap V wrote:

Hi Jack (Sarfatti),

Physics (science) has made tremendous progress in understanding matter and energy during last several hundred years based on sensory experiments and models. From morning till evening we are reminded of this (just look at cell phone in everyone’s pockets!). But progress in understanding consciousness has been practically zero.

WRONG!

That may be because consciousness is perhaps a borderline subject between sensory and non-sensory aspects of the universe. Scientists may not even want to admit that there could be a non-sensory world out there! 

NOT EVEN WRONG

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

With the notable exception of many mathematicians!

Some physicists, like David Deutsch, are so much physicalist that they put mathematics out of science. To me, like to Gauss; it is the queen of Science.

And consciousness, when we assume mechanism, is most plausibly related to the non sensory world of mathematics and thought, than physics.

Physics is not the science for consciousness.

WRONG!

It think it is theology and psychology which can address that problem.

WRONG!

With mechanism, the consciousness problem is basically translated, by mathematical logic, into the problem of reducing physics to Number theology.

NOT EVEN WRONG!

Physics can noT be the fundamental science, and cannot even be invoked when working on the mind-body problem (in the mechanist frame).

WRONG!

Enough of this primitive thinking.

(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/ABFBEDA2-DEF0-4CEE-A94E-88C69D3C65EE%40ulb.ac.be.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
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/936C9655-89E1-4EBA-AF49-353663E80823%40aol.com.

[JACK SARFATTI]

I never heard of him.

I have solved the mind matter consciousness problem with mainstream theoretical physics.

All previous thoughts on the subject are now obsolete - a waste of time.

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/CAOzTBUNw0tFTnFGQYcMCw-8nBXd2Gk52_STwUy2jCQ4%3Dydc%3DFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tusar Nath Mohapatra]

Tweets by Tusar Sir @SavitriEraParty

(Tusar Nath Mohapatra)

Sadhu-Sanga mulls over consciousness

From pigs to piano, quantum and qualia

Taking a tour from Turing to Penrose and Rosen

Leibniz to Gödel

Machines can know their incompleteness

Numbers conspire to spur consciousness

Notions from Nagasena to Chaitanya

Tug of war over physicalism

From eight-limbs Yoga to eight-bends Gita

Mails flying to and fro throughout eight praharas

Weaving web of words on world wide web

To comfort

Theories don't compare, domains vary

Pushing names a political game

Leibniz is lionised, Gödel waiting for Godot

TM and Vedic Unified-Field

Investigating consciousness via science
And mathematics can never be satisfying
Because of the subjective nature
Of the object of observation.

https://t.co/i0Sy289vLj
https://twitter.com/SavitriEraParty/status/867944363615113216

https://selforum.blogspot.in/2017/05/we-are-just-spending-time-writing-words.html

On May 26, 2017 7:22 AM, "'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I never heard of him.

I have solved the mind matter consciousness problem with mainstream theoretical physics.

All previous thoughts on the subject are now obsolete - a waste of time.

On May 23, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Don Salmon <donsa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack, if you think that non-physicalist metaphysics has no role to play in science, do you think Michel Bibbol's 'Is Consciousness Primary?" is equally misguided as the authors and books you mention?

http://www.remember-to-breathe.org/Breathing-Videos.html 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAOzTBUNw0tFTnFGQYcMCw-8nBXd2Gk52_STwUy2jCQ4%3Dydc%3DFQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/448A03F9-7486-45B9-99F9-9D5DEB8F12C2%40aol.com.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

Thanks for your reply with extensive explanation of Vedic Philosophy. Can I ask you the same question I asked Vimalji? Personally I do not have any personal experience about astral body, Samadhi etc. I have not also talked to anyone who has had these experiences. Did you have any such experiences or did you meet any one who had such experiences?

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 7:18 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks.

 

Though there are a no of streams of the Vedic philosophy, however, in the instant message, I shall speak specifically of Saankhya philosophy. As per Saankha, at the fundamental level of the reality, there are two entities viz Purusha and Moola Prakriti. Purusha represents cosmic consciousness -- an infinite, boundless ocean of universal consciousness representing Sata, Chita and Annand of Brahman of Upnishadas. Second fundamental entity viz Moola Prakriti represents the most primordial form of the physicality from which all the particle matter in form of baryonic one and physical energies of 4 basic forces emanate out.

 

But the key point to highlight here is that from Moola Prakriti, baryonic matter in the particle form and energy of 4 forces do not manifest directly, as is commonly understood by the contemporary Physicists and Cosmologists. Prior to this manifestation, there are a no of manifestations, which are the structural transformations of Moola Prakriti in some sequential order. In order to not to make the matter unduly complicated, I am skipping the description of the entire chain of the sequential transformations. However, I start in between from the stage of Chitta  which is a structure as arrived at by the transformation of the Moola Prakriti. This Chitta should not be confused with Chit, guna of ( Purusha) Brahmana or Chetan Shakti ( conscious power) of Brahmana. In the subsequent order, Ahmkaara is produced as a derivative of Moola Prakriti.Ahmkaara is produced from Tamas Mahata, again a derivative of Moola Prakriti.

 

From Rajas Mahat, Buddhi is produced and from Tamas Mahat, Ahmkaara is produced. From the combination of Sattva Ahmkaara and Rajas Ahmkaara, Manas is created and from each of Sattva Ahmkaara and Rajas Ahmkara, 5 Jnanaindreyaas ( senses of knowledge) and 5 Karma  Indreyaas ( senses of action) take birth. From Tamas Ahmkaara, 5 Tanmaatras ( or Suukshmaa Mahabhuttas) are produced. These 5 Tanmaatras are Shabad, Rupa, Saparsha, Rasa and Gandha.

 

It is from above 5 Tanmaatras, that 5 Mahabhuttas viz Prithvi, Jala, Vaayu, Agni and Akaasha representing all the baryonic matter of particle nature and physical energies of 4 forces take birth. Prithvi, Jala, Vaayu represent 3 states of the matter in its 3 states viz solids, liquid, and gas while Agni and Akash represent physical energy of 4 forces and space. These 5 Mahabhuttas represent Sthuula jJagat( our sensory physical world).

 

Physics and cosmology of the day have a quite exhaustive and intensive knowledge of the physical world but it has no news of the physicality prior to this viz that of the Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas, Chitta and Ahmkaaras and of the cosmic consciousness ( Purusha). In view of this, contemporary physicists -- both quantum and non-quantum one, mathematicians, logicians, philosophers have come out with all sort of theories/models/hypothesis to explain the emergence of consciousness and mind for which they have coined a new phrase viz mind-body problem.

 

The way 5 Mahabhuttas, representing all the matter of particle nature and physical energy of 4 forces constitute the physical world similarly 5 Tanmaatras, 10 Indreyaas, 1 Manas and 1 Buddhi constitute Suukshma Jagat ( Astral world). Ahmkaaras and Chitta constitute what we call Kaarana jagat ( Causal world). These two worlds viz  Astral and Causal worlds are also the physical realms but transcendental to our physical world beyond the sensory perceptions.

 

From the 5 Tanmaatras, 1 Manas, 1 Buddhi, 10 indreeyas, which ist are produced at the cosmological scales, parts are extracted and they assemble to constitute Astral bodies. Similarly, from Chitta and Ahmkaaras at the cosmological scales, parts are extracted and they assemble to constitute Causal bodies. Astral and Causal bodies recycle from birth to birth, from species to species. At the time of the conception, astral body and causal body along with the localized consciousness ( soul) enters the Zygote and at the time of the death of the physical body, they leave for the journey to the next birth.

 

The astral body having Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas though ontologically distinct from the physical body is present in the entire physical body. From the spatial perspective, the Astral body is primarily present in the physical brain constituted of cells, tissues which in turn are composed out of the baryonic matter-- atoms/molecules. When a perceptual or cognitive thought is produced, its primary initiation and processing are done at the astral bodily level ( this is what constitute the real mind) and its effect is projected at the physical brain level in form of neural correlates. In the normal awakened state, the astral body having astral Manas and physical brain works in the close conjunction with each other.  Thus manifestation of a thought is due to the combined and joint action of both physical brain and astral mind. The joint assembly of   Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas, Chitta and Ahmkaara collectively is what is called Mind in the Western neuroscience and philosophical thought process.

 

The physical world of the baryonic matter and 4 forces ( or Pancha Mahabuhuttas of Saankhyaa) constitutes Matter in the 3 in 1 scheme of Robert Boyer, a participant on this group.

 

Astral and Causal worlds of Manas, Indreyaas, Buddhi, Tanmaatras, Chitta and Ahmkaaras constitute Mind, the second realm or field in Boyer's scheme

 

Cosmic consciousness ( Purusha) is the 3rd and final realm in Boyer's scheme of 3 in 1.

 

All ther elements of the Astral and Causal body/worlds viz Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas, Tanmaatras, Chitta and Ahmkaaras are undetectable in the empirical objective research, which is the primary tool of the current science, hence physicists and neuroscientists don't recognize the existence of these ontological realities. Consequently, they have been struggling since decades to solve mind-body problem and consciousness by proposing a pletthora of various theories/models/hypothesis, some quite weird one, out of the known physicality of the baryonic matter particles and 4 forces but without much success

 

But in te subjective empirical reserach employing the methodology of Samaadhi following a spiritiual dischipline, all the referred elements of the Astral and Causal bodies/world viz Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas, Tanmaatras, Chitta and Ahmkaaras can be vividly seen/observed in the state of Samaadhi and their mechanism can  also be known in the subjective manner.

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

Please call me kashyap! Thanks for your interesting comment. To my understanding scientists just call this lump of tissue containing neurons etc.  brain. The rest, our control over life functions, feelings, intelligence, understanding, consciousness etc. are dumped into something called mind. But hardly any scientist knows what exactly mind is!! You are separating mind from consciousness. Then in your way of thinking, how far down in the tree of life , starting from human beings, these go? The way cats ,dogs and many animals look at you, it seems they have mind and probably consciousness also. I understand Vedas have large number of separate elements, Manas, Buddhi, Ahankar, Chitta etc. What is your opinion on all this?

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 4:08 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Response to your question on Bohm's theory

 

Dear Dr.  Kashyap,

 

 

Had consciousness been under the domain pf senses, scientists would have gained its understanding quite long ago. Understanding is the function of the mind. It is the mind which acquires the capability of understanding due to consciousness. So between the consciousness and mind, there is a cause-effect relationship. The effect can't lead to cause. Consciousness at its biological level has to be intuitively felt and that we all human beings 'feel" every minute and every second that we are the conscious one. Consciousness at the fundamental level has to be "experienced" in the state of Samaadhi when biological consciousness transcends all body/matter, mind/energy and gets identified with the cosmic consciousness.

 

Though a no of Physicists and Quantum scientists  ( Dr. Jack Sarfatti being one of them) are making quite sincere efforts since decades to understand consciousness in terms of some quantum phenomenon, however,  there is no way to ascertain if  any quantum phenomenon is really consciousness. In the instant case of Dr. Sarfatti's theory/hypothesis, quantum wave of the neuronal particles is considered to be the mind and when matter reacts back on this wave ( the mental one), consciousness ( qualia) is hypothesized to take birth. But there is no way out to ascertain if the quantum wave is real "mind" or imprint left on the wave by the reverse reaction on the wave by matter is really consciousness. All the assessments and ascertaining are done by consciousness/mind. If consciousness/mind will assess and ascertain phenomenon of the quantum wave from neuronal particles and the backward reaction of matter on the wave for to be mind/consciousness, the same is not plausible since this will create a situation in which there will be two minds or two consciousnesses. Therefore, objective assessment of any physical phenomenon, whether quantum or non-quantum one, to be mind or consciousness ( qualia) is not feasible. I had posed these issues to CS Morrison and Jack Sarfatti on this thread but there was no response.

 

Consciousness is the seat of "awareness" ( experience) and mind is the seat of understanding. In the normal awakened state, awareness and understanding exist and work in close conjunction. In the state of Samaadhi, mind, and understanding surrenders down and only awareness persists but that is the pure awareness much superior to awareness of the awakened state.

 

Regards

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

 

 

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
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/fc85b2c2295e41928a8baa1d9eefc134%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[JACK SARFATTI]

On May 25, 2017, at 5:49 PM, 'Robert Boyer' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Jack,

I'd like to be clearer about your comment that one of the statements in my recent email is "not correct." 

When I made the comment that in the Bohm-Hiley interpretation "all the mathematics are not worked out," I was referring to their concept of the nonlocal implicate order, which at times they also associate with their concept of the "psi wave." 

There are two Bohm theories. The later Bohm implicate/explicate has now been worked out by  Basil Hiley using Clifford and Moyal algebras.

I am only concerned with young Bohm 1952 pilot wave theory now brought to completion by Rod Sutherland.

Are you are asserting that there is definitive mathematical refutation of the concept of the nonlocal implicate order?  

Forget about nonlocal implicate order. It's really locally retrocausal Costa de Beauregard zig-zags - see papers by Huw Price.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/444669728.112917.1495759777676%40mail.yahoo.com.

[N.Panchapakesan]

Excellent Tusar. Without laughter, joy and detachment, there is no life.

Panchu
N. Panchapakesan

New Delhi

> <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Trying to reconcile modern physics with ancient spiritual doctrines
>> Eastern or Western is not useful for the progress of our understanding of
>> reality. At best it is a diversion, at worst it leads to fake science. For
>> the record, I regret (as a naive young man) having played a pivotal role in
>> such books as Space-Time and Beyond, Tao of Physics, and The Dancing Wu Li
>> Masters (see David Kaiser's two books How the Hippies Saved Physics and
>> Groovy Science for that story) in misleading millions of New Age
>> progressives in that direction.
>>
>> On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, 'Robert Boyer' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy
>> association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.

>> email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

> email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

> 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/448A03F9-7486-45B9-99F9-9D5DEB8F12C2%40aol.com.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

> 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/CA%2BLR%2B%3DUtB-UL3og_i9RnEagZjk7D10YGA%3D8sEH2qZT65OjEpig%40mail.gmail.com.

[JACK SARFATTI]

http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/emergence-theory-overview

"Emergence Theory Overview | Quantum Gravity Research

Emergence Theory

A Theory of Pixelated Spacetime and of Reality as a Quasicrystalline Point Space 
Projected From the E8 Crystal

Emergence theory is a unified first-principles theory currently in development by a Los Angeles-based team of scientists. Emergence theory weaves together quantum mechanics, general and special relativity, the standard model and other mainstream physics theories into a complete, fundamental picture of a discretized, self-actualizing universe."

Sarfatti Comment #1 PQM (Post Quantum Mechanics) is predicts a self-actualizing conscious universe because of two principles:

1. LR (Local Retrocausality, e.g. Huw Price) "zig-zag" (O. Costa de Beauregard) explanation of QM entanglement

2.  pilot-wave action - beable reaction (e.g. Sarfatti 1996 Tucson, Towler Bohm Pilot Wave Cambridge Lecture 8 slides 25, 31, recent papers by Roderick Sutherland on the LR action-reaction weak measurement fully relativistic Bohm pilot wave-beable Lagrangian obviating need for higher dimensional configuration space for entangled pilot waves —> locally decodable (keyless) effective "CTC" entanglement command-control-communication-channel C^4 permitting solution of Chalmers's "hard problem" in accord with Roger Penrose's non-computational (non-algorithmic) theory of consciousness beyond classical Turing Machine computational limits imposed by Godel undecidability for algorithms (using one-way retarded causality only)

"At the root of emergence theory’s formalism is a concept quickly taking hold in the theoretical physics community––that all of reality is made of information. What is information? Information is meaning conveyed by symbols. Languages and codes are groups of such symbols that convey meaning. The various possible arrangements of these symbols are governed by rules. The language user makes free-will choices regarding how to arrange the symbols, in order to produce meaning, according to these rules. Fundamentally, then, the existence of information must therefore imply a “chooser,” or some form of consciousness, in order for it to be actualized."

Sarfatti Comment #2 This is the basic idea of Qabala e.g. Carlos Suares "Cipher of Genesis". Now that we have the PQM precise definition of conscious qualia, the codes and symbols make perfect sense as part of the operation of Hawking's "Mind of God" on our future de Sitter dark energy observer-dependent cosmological event horizon (2D world hologram "plate" or "screen") that Seth Lloyd argues is a "quantum computer" more precisely a PQM "conscious computer" beyond classical algorithms.

We are outside black hole horizons, but we are inside our two past and future cosmological horizons.

"We identify two classes of symbols. One class contains those symbols that subjectively represent something other than the symbols themselves. For example, the shape of two intersecting diagonal lines (“X”) can represent the mathematical concept of multiplication, it can represent an English letter, or it can represent a kiss. The shapes known as the letters “D-O-G” can represent a certain animal that we all know and love, but they can also represent anything else if we decide that they do. The second and arguably more fundamental class of symbols are those symbols that represent themselves with ultra-low subjectivity. An example is the shape of a square representing the shape of a square. Such a geometric language using geometric symbols could express geometric meaning.

Reality is experimentally observed to be geometric at all scales, from the Planck level to the largest structures. Our group hypothesizes that an entirely geometric language or code, using geometric symbolism, is the fundamental way in which meaning, in the form of our physical reality, is expressed by…well, we’ll get to that.

A central feature of reality behaving geometrically is that all fundamental particles and forces in nature, including gravity, can transform into one another, through a process called gauge symmetry transformation, in a manner that corresponds precisely to the vertices of the 8-dimensional polytope of a crystal called the E8 lattice. However, we do not appear to live in an 8-dimensional universe. Experimental evidence indicates that we live in a universe comprised of only three spatial dimensions.

What kind of geometric language or code, then, would express a geometric, 3-dimensional reality that is deeply linked to the 8-dimensional, E8 lattice?

We believe the answer is in the language and mathematics of quasicrystals. A quasicrystal is an aperiodic, but not random, pattern. A quasicrystal in any given dimension is created by projecting a crystal - a periodic pattern - from a higher dimension to a lower one. For example, imagine projecting a 3-dimensional checkerboard - or cubic lattice made of equally spaced and sized cubes - onto a 2-dimensional plane at a certain angle. This 3D cubic lattice is a periodic pattern that may stretch out infinitely in all directions. The 2D, projected object is not a periodic pattern. Rather, it is distorted due to the angle of projection, and instead of containing only one shape that repeats infinitely like the 3D crystal does, it contains a finite number of different shapes (called proto-tiles) that are oriented relative to one another in specific ways, governed by a set of mathematical/geometrical rules, to fill the 2D plane in all directions. By analyzing the 2D projection it is possible, with the correct mathematical and trigonometric toolkit, to actually recover the "mother" object in 3D (the cubic lattice crystal in this example.) A famous example of a 2D quasicrystal is the Penrose tiling conceived by Roger Penrose in the 1970’s, in which a 2D quasicrystal is created by projecting a 5-dimensional cubic lattice to a 2D plane.

Emergence theory focuses on projecting the 8-dimensional E8 crystal to 4D and 3D. When the fundamental 8D cell of the E8 lattice (a shape with 240 vertices known as the “Gosset polytope”) is projected to 4D, two identical, 4D shapes of different sizes are created. The ratio of their sizes is the golden ratio. Each of these shapes are constructed of 600 3-dimensional tetrahedra rotated from one another by a golden-ratio based angle. We refer to this 4D shape as the “600-Cell.” The 600-Cells interact in specific ways (they intersect in 7 golden-ratio related ways and “kiss” in one particular way) to form a 4D quasicrystal. By taking 3D subspaces of this 4D quasicrystal and rotating them from one another at a certain angle, we form a 3D quasicrystal that has one type of proto-tile: a 3D tetrahedron.

On a TV or computer screen the smallest, indivisible unit is a 2D pixel. In our 3D quasicrystalline reality, the tetrahedron is the smallest, indivisible unit. A 3D pixel of reality, if you will. Each tetrahedron is the smallest possible 3D shape that can exist in this reality: the length of each of its edges is the Planck length (the shortest possible length known in physics - over 10^35 times smaller than a meter) These 3D pixels combine with one another according to specific, geometric rules, to populate all of space.

On a 2D screen, the pixels never move. They simply have different brightness and color values, and an illusion of meaning (in the form of a picture) is created by their combined values. Similarly, the tetrahedra in the 3D quasicrystal never move either. Instead, they act as a binary language: in any given moment, each tetrahedron can be chosen by the code operator to be either “on” or “off.” If it is “on,” it can be in one of two states: “rotated left” or “rotated right.”

Imagine a single, frozen moment in time throughout the entire universe. Let’s call this moment “moment 1” for the purposes of illustration. In moment 1, the 3D quasicrystal filling the entire universe is in “state 1” and in this state, some tetrahedra are on, some are off, some are rotated left and some are rotated right. Now imagine the next frozen moment in time, “moment 2.” In moment 2, the quasicrystal is in “state 2.” In this new state, many of the tetrahedra are in different states from their states in moment 1. Now imagine a hundred of these moments. Now imagine an animation of all of these frozen moments.

If you think of a movie, the moving-image is composed of single, frozen frames that are filmed and projected at a certain speed (24 frames per second in most modern movies). In our model, one second contains 10^44 frozen frames. Over many of these frames patterns emerge on the 3D quasicrystal. These patterns become more and more meaningful and sophisticated with time. Gradually patterns resembling and acting as particles form on the quasicrystal. In fact, one of the most groundbreaking predictions Emergence theory will make is about a specific, pixelated substructure of electrons––particles currently thought of, without proof, as dimensionless. With time, these particles take on more and more complex forms, and eventually the reality we all know and love emerges.

Emergence theory views spacetime in a way that builds on Einstein’s spacetime model, in which the future and past exist simultaneously in one geometric object. We view this object as a system in which all frames of spacetime interact with all other frames all the time. In other words, there is a constant, dynamic, causality loop relationship between all moments in time, in which the past influences the future and the future influences the past.

We view consciousness as both emergent and fundamental. In its fundamental form, consciousness exists inside every tetrahedron/pixel in the 3D quasicrystal in the form of something we call viewing vectors. Think of viewing vectors as micro-scale observers in the traditional quantum mechanical sense. These observers actualize reality by making ultra-fast, Planck scale choices about the binary states of the pixels (on, off, left, right) at every moment in time. This fundamental,  primitive, yet highly sophisticated, form of consciousness steers the patterns on the quasicrystalline point-space toward more and more meaning. Eventually consciousness expands into higher degrees of order such as nature and life as we know it. From there life and consciousness keep expanding, growing exponentially, into all corners of the universe. Imagine humankind one day populating trillions of galaxies, its instantaneous communicative channels and high levels of consciousness growing over time into a massive, universal-scale neural network––a collective consciousness of sorts. This collective consciousness conceives the fundamental, “primitive” consciousness that powers the quasicrystal from which it emerges.

A creates B.

B creates C.

And C creates A.

There are no known laws in physics that place an upper limit on what percentage of the universe can exponentially self-organize into freewill systems such as us humans. Indeed, physics allows the possibility that all the energy of the universe can be converted into a single, conscious system that itself is a network of conscious systems. Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen. By this axiom, universal emergent consciousness has emerged via self-organization somewhere ahead of us in 4D spacetime. And because it is possible, it is inevitable. In fact, according to the evidence of retro-causality time loops, that inevitable future is co-creating us right now just as we are co-creating it."

Sarfatti Comment #3 I have been professing this last sentence since at least 1973 as recorded in a tape of my meeting with Hal Puthoff, Russell Targ, Brendan O Regan and others at Dean Brown's Palo Alto house on my first visit to the CIA SRI Remote-Viewing Project - see David Kaiser "How the Hippies Saved Physics" for details. Saul-Paul Sirag has that tape and it may also be on the Web. 

See also END NOTES here p.331

https://www.academia.edu/32054204/Updated_JackSarfatti_Physics_Essays_1991_Faster-Than-Light_Communication_-_complete_version_cited_by_David_Kaiser_in_How_the_Hippies_Saved_Physics

[Don Johnson]

In regard to the statement 

There are no known laws in physics that place an upper limit on what percentage of the universe can exponentially self-organize into freewill systems such as us humans. Indeed, physics allows the possibility that all the energy of the universe can be converted into a single, conscious system that itself is a network of conscious systems. Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen. By this axiom, universal emergent consciousness has emerged via self-organization somewhere ahead of us in 4D spacetime. And because it is possible, it is inevitable. In fact, according to the evidence of retro-causality time loops, that inevitable future is co-creating us right now just as we are co-creating it."

As is often the case, people misuse the term "possible" without supplying from known science that the assertion has proven non-zero probability. Speculation has its place, but please please avoid using "possible" to categorize unsubstantiated claims.

Don (author of "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability")

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/0C03C513-1E35-4AC0-BD57-2973E81D94F7%40aol.com.

[JACK SARFATTI]

On May 27, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Don Johnson <id....@gmail.com> wrote:

In regard to the statement 

There are no known laws in physics that place an upper limit on what percentage of the universe can exponentially self-organize into freewill systems such as us humans. Indeed, physics allows the possibility that all the energy of the universe can be converted into a single, conscious system that itself is a network of conscious systems. Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen. By this axiom, universal emergent consciousness has emerged via self-organization somewhere ahead of us in 4D spacetime. And because it is possible, it is inevitable. In fact, according to the evidence of retro-causality time loops, that inevitable future is co-creating us right now just as we are co-creating it."

As is often the case, people misuse the term "possible" without supplying from known science that the assertion has proven non-zero probability. Speculation has its place, but please please avoid using "possible" to categorize unsubstantiated claims.

Don (author of "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability")

This issue has been dealt with in references below - it's Block Universe. We have no need for the word "possible" every thing is real i.e. the mental pilot waves are as physically real as are the classical spacetime and matter "beables"."

What is actual are the classical matter/spacetime beables and their mental pilot wave quantum potential influencing the motion of the former (beables).

2.  arXiv:1510.06712 [pdf, ps, other]

A Live Alternative to Quantum Spooks

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 7 pages; minor revisions

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

3.  arXiv:1508.01140 [pdf, other]

Disentangling the Quantum World

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 17 pages, 3 figures; significant revisions in response to referees' comments

Journal-ref: Entropy, v17, 7752-7767 (2015)

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

4.  arXiv:1307.7744 [pdf, other]

Dispelling the Quantum Spooks -- a Clue that Einstein Missed?

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 16 pages, 5 figures, 2 boxes

Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

5.  arXiv:1103.2492 [pdf, ps, other]

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 12:30 PM, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/emergence-theory-overview

"Emergence Theory Overview | Quantum Gravity Research

Emergence Theory

A Theory of Pixelated Spacetime and of Reality as a Quasicrystalline Point Space 
Projected From the E8 Crystal

Emergence theory is a unified first-principles theory currently in development by a Los Angeles-based team of scientists. Emergence theory weaves together quantum mechanics, general and special relativity, the standard model and other mainstream physics theories into a complete, fundamental picture of a discretized, self-actualizing universe."

Sarfatti Comment #1 PQM (Post Quantum Mechanics) is predicts a self-actualizing conscious universe because of two principles:

1. LR (Local Retrocausality, e.g. Huw Price) "zig-zag" (O. Costa de Beauregard) explanation of QM entanglement

2.  pilot-wave action - beable reaction (e.g. Sarfatti 1996 Tucson, Towler Bohm Pilot Wave Cambridge Lecture 8 slides 25, 31, recent papers by Roderick Sutherland on the LR action-reaction weak measurement fully relativistic Bohm pilot wave-beable Lagrangian obviating need for higher dimensional configuration space for entangled pilot waves —> locally decodable (keyless) effective "CTC" entanglement command-control-communication-channel C^4 permitting solution of Chalmers's "hard problem" in accord with Roger Penrose's non-computational (non-algorithmic) theory of consciousness beyond classical Turing Machine computational limits imposed by Godel undecidability for algorithms (using one-way retarded causality only)

"At the root of emergence theory’s formalism is a concept quickly taking hold in the theoretical physics community––that all of reality is made of information. What is information? Information is meaning conveyed by symbols. Languages and codes are groups of such symbols that convey meaning. The various possible arrangements of these symbols are governed by rules. The language user makes free-will choices regarding how to arrange the symbols, in order to produce meaning, according to these rules. Fundamentally, then, the existence of information must therefore imply a “chooser,” or some form of consciousness, in order for it to be actualized."

Sarfatti Comment #2 This is the basic idea of Qabala e.g. Carlos Suares "Cipher of Genesis". Now that we have the PQM precise definition of conscious qualia, the codes and symbols make perfect sense as part of the operation of Hawking's "Mind of God" on our future de Sitter dark energy observer-dependent cosmological event horizon (2D world hologram "plate" or "screen") that Seth Lloyd argues is a "quantum computer" more precisely a PQM "conscious computer" beyond classical algorithms.

<DavisFig1-1Hologram(1).jpg><holouniverse03_01.jpg>

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/CAJQRYrcxuUc0fUX%2B99vGTCUfRS6T0hOjNhw-qad-Xw5Kxqjc4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Don, the slogan " Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen" assumes a universe  which is basically unchanging. Ours is not that kind of universe.  Hydrogen is being converted into heavier elements in an irreversible process, and Hoyle's steady state theory, which assumes continual creation of hydrogen from nothing (or from decaying neutrons that come from nothing) is out of fashion.

Moreover, our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to something called "negative energy," so that even if the steady state theory were true, there is no real chance of the energy of the universe coming together at all, let alone into a single conscious system.

By the way, "possible" does NOT mean positive probability.  In a universe which goes on without
end forever, with coins flipped infinitely many times, all positive numbers are too large to express the  probability that the limit of the ratio of heads to tails does not exist. And yet, it is possible for the limit not to exist.

On the other hand, a universe which does not go on forever cannot realize the slogan, because it does not  encompass "enough time."

Peter Nyikos
Mathematics Professor   
University of South Carolina (Columbia)
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [online_sa...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Don Johnson [id....@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:42 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; science

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Response to your question on Bohm's theory

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/CAJQRYrcxuUc0fUX%2B99vGTCUfRS6T0hOjNhw-qad-Xw5Kxqjc4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

I tried sending an attachment from Scientifican American in my preceding posting (see below) but it was too big because of the figures. So I'll try again without the unnecessary figures. The article titled "The Quantum Universe" is relevant to many of our discussions about how our universe works. 

Stan

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Thanks Jack,

It is worth pointing out that some interpretations of QM have human free will and some don't. Some Bohmian types of QM have hidden variables that specify what can get actualized and some don't. 

But there are other approaches including approaches without actualization. The June, 2017 Scientific American has a nifty article on a particular interpretation that connects QM to cosmology and skips actualization. I highly recommend reading it. It includes work by some of world's top physicists. For the above reasons I'm sending it as an attachment. 

Stan

[JACK SARFATTI]

On May 27, 2017, at 3:42 PM, NYIKOS, PETER <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:

Don, the slogan " Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen" assumes a universe  which is basically unchanging. Ours is not that kind of universe.  Hydrogen is being converted into heavier elements in an irreversible process, and Hoyle's steady state theory, which assumes continual creation of hydrogen from nothing (or from decaying neutrons that come from nothing) is out of fashion.

Moreover, our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to something called "negative energy," so that even if the steady state theory were true, there is no real chance of the energy of the universe coming together at all, let alone into a single conscious system.

not even wrong, you do not know how to think about this problem

<DavisFig1-1Hologram(1).jpg><holouniverse03_01.jpg>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634780E8282%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.

[JACK SARFATTI]

On May 27, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

I tried sending an attachment from Scientifican American in my preceding posting (see below) but it was too big because of the figures. So I'll try again without the unnecessary figures. The article titled "The Quantum Universe" is relevant to many of our discussions about how our universe works. 

Stan

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Thanks Jack,

It is worth pointing out that some interpretations of QM have human free will and some don't. Some Bohmian types of QM have hidden variables that specify what can get actualized and some don't. 

I don't think your last sentence above is correct. What are you talking about. Give details, reference. There is no actualization in Bohm 1952 - the actual is always there. 

But there are other approaches including approaches without actualization. The June, 2017 Scientific American has a nifty article on a particular interpretation that connects QM to cosmology and skips actualization. I highly recommend reading it. It includes work by some of world's top physicists. For the above reasons I'm sending it as an attachment. 

It's all muddled nonsense even if it's in Sigh American ;-)

Stan

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 2:01 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

On May 27, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Don Johnson <id....@gmail.com> wrote:

In regard to the statement 

There are no known laws in physics that place an upper limit on what percentage of the universe can exponentially self-organize into freewill systems such as us humans. Indeed, physics allows the possibility that all the energy of the universe can be converted into a single, conscious system that itself is a network of conscious systems. Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen. By this axiom, universal emergent consciousness has emerged via self-organization somewhere ahead of us in 4D spacetime. And because it is possible, it is inevitable. In fact, according to the evidence of retro-causality time loops, that inevitable future is co-creating us right now just as we are co-creating it."

As is often the case, people misuse the term "possible" without supplying from known science that the assertion has proven non-zero probability. Speculation has its place, but please please avoid using "possible" to categorize unsubstantiated claims.

Don (author of "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability")

This issue has been dealt with in references below - it's Block Universe. We have no need for the word "possible" every thing is real i.e. the mental pilot waves are as physically real as are the classical spacetime and matter "beables"."

What is actual are the classical matter/spacetime beables and their mental pilot wave quantum potential influencing the motion of the former (beables).

<QuantumMultiverse Nomura scientificamerican p3 4.pdf><Pages from QuantumMultiverse Nomura scientificamerican p7 8.pdf>

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 May 2017, at 09:36, Tusar Nath Mohapatra wrote:

Tweets by Tusar Sir @SavitriEraParty

(Tusar Nath Mohapatra)

Sadhu-Sanga mulls over consciousness

From pigs to piano, quantum and qualia

Taking a tour from Turing to Penrose and Rosen

Leibniz to Gödel

Machines can know their incompleteness

Numbers conspire to spur consciousness

Notions from Nagasena to Chaitanya

Tug of war over physicalism

From eight-limbs Yoga to eight-bends Gita

Mails flying to and fro throughout eight praharas

Weaving web of words on world wide web

To comfort

Theories don't compare, domains vary

Pushing names a political game

Leibniz is lionised, Gödel waiting for Godot

TM and Vedic Unified-Field

Nice poem.

Investigating consciousness via science
And mathematics can never be satisfying
Because of the subjective nature
Of the object of observation.

It depends on the assumption of your fundamental theory. 

With the mechanist assumption, you are not only right, but what you say becomes a theorem in the fundamental theory. With mechanism, even arithmetic entails the existence of the many subjective views, and of many possible observations, and their parts partially irreducible to anything 3p describable.

Mechanism saves the soul (of the machine) from all reduction to anything purely 3p describable. It provides a powerful vaccine against reductionisme (indeed against already the reductionist conception of what are capable the digital-machines/numbers).

Bruno

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/CA%2BLR%2B%3DUtB-UL3og_i9RnEagZjk7D10YGA%3D8sEH2qZT65OjEpig%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Murty Hari]

To all those talking about Bohm's theories,

I agree with Prof. Sarfatti that the pursuit of understanding Reality does not have to refer to any already developed Philosophy whether Eastern or Western.  However, the consciousness theory of Bohm, (whose quantum theory Sarfatti has modified to PQM and claims that PQM explains consciousness scientifically), is influenced largely by the Eastern philosophies which Bohm heard from J. Krishnamoorthy (JK); I say influenced, but not exactly the same because Buddhist and Hindu philosophies (H&B) do not say mind is the same as matter, which is accessible to one or more of the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. The former is not accessible to senses; thoughts of one are not known to others unless one conveys them to others by sensory or material/physical means; that is why there is a great temptation to lie!  H&B say that mind is a sense in addition to the five senses implying that they are all tools in creating our conscious experiences but that they are NOT conscious by themselves.  That mind is also NOT conscious just like the other five senses is the thrust of JK’s statements that mind is material. JK was not a physicist and in no position to describe the relations and interactions between the six senses in a way suitable for translation into physics.

Bohm seems to have misunderstood JK’s “”mind is material” statement.  In Wholeness and Implicate order, Bohm says: “we may say that language is an undivided field of movement, involving sound, meaning, attention-calling, emotional and muscular reflexes, etc.”— This sentence is misleading; the speaking activity IS a unified movement but language is not.  We do feel emotions and have emotional body movements while talking, and to be able to say something we do need to pay attention to what we are saying, but language is NOT the undivided field; it is only a part of the speaking activity and different from meaning, emotions and attention. We ASSIGN meaning to words in a language. The word anger is not angry; the meaning of the word anger is conveyed by different words in different languages. The word anger is NOT the same as its meaning, nor is anger the same as the sound produced when the word is uttered, nor the bodily movement; even the electrical signals by which the sound energy is carried on a telephone line, are not the same as the word’s meaning. There is something called anger inside a living individual who conveys it to others by choosing appropriate words and physical means that are accessible by the senses of the receiver.  

Now, one may say that I am playing with his words and that he did not imply what I charged him with. The problem is that Bohm keeps extending this concept of inseparability and wholeness until he confuses inseparability with identity or oneness. Bohm says: “the quantum potential is active information that is simultaneously physical and mental in nature …. These two sides are inseparable, in the sense that information contained in thought, which we feel to be on the 'mental' side, is at the same time a related neurophysiological, chemical, and physical activity (which is clearly what is meant by the 'material' side of this thought)” ------ This is a very misleading statement.  In the case of a sensory experience, for example, seeing an apple, the perceived information is different from both the apple and its biological/neural map created in the brain/body of the human (living) being. Now, neuroscience does say that every subjective (conscious) state such as a conscious intention or conscious emotion, or perception of an external object, occurs only if a required and correlated neural process takes place.  Each conscious state has its associated neural correlates (NCs) of consciousness: one for seeing a red patch, another one for seeing grandmother, yet a third one for hearing a siren, etc. (Mormann and Koch http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness). Note however, that one is NEVER aware of the existence of the NC in one’s own brain. One is only aware of the NC’s ‘meaning’, which must have been created along with the NC because awareness of seeing the apple cannot be there without its NC. But does it imply that it is the same as its NC? No; because the brain’s owner (BO) is aware of only the ‘meaning’ and not the NC. On the other hand, a neuroscientist monitoring the brain can see an image of the NC on the monitor but does not know the NC’s ‘meaning’ (namely, what BO is aware of).  The neuroscientist will have to accept whatever BO reports as his/her experience. Thus the NC, which is objective (I;e., accessible to senses via physical devices) and its ‘meaning’ which is subjective (I’e., not accessible to senses or devices) are inseparable in BO’s brain-mind system but they are not identical. Observation of matter involves senses and we say that matter is physical. On the contrary, thought is not only not-accessible to senses but there are concepts which do not involve any sensory inputs to the brain, for example, the concept of infinity and in fact, all logic.

Interestingly, a quantum particle cannot be observed directly by senses but we do not call it unphysical! — perhaps because we can design a suitable experiment to ‘observe’ its position and some properties.  But do we really observe it by senses? No. We only ‘infer’ its position or a property from the reading on the measurement device! Similarly, the wavefunction is not observable (directly by senses) and the quantum potential which depends on the wavefunction is not observable also. So one may argue that there is nothing wrong with assuming that the quantum potential is thought or the same as what one is aware of in a conscious experience.  Indeed, Bohm proposes that the quantum potential is the same as thought but it raises the question: there is no mental aspect in any physical process in which the brain (a living being) is not involved. There is no mental aspect in any lifeless quantum system as the dual aspect of its quantum potential. Why should there be a mental activity inseparable from its physical activity in the brain? Why does the brain’s physical activity not require somebody else to assign some meaning to it?

Now, Sarfatti may argue that quantum potential IS mind and that lifeless quantum systems ARE conscious and we simply do not know that they are.  May be so; but their consciousness and thoughts so far, have never interfered with any instructions we enter into a quantum computer designed to perform the tasks we want it to do. So, we may safely believe that the information that the quantum potential carries does not overwrite the information in the computer-designers' minds, which they have already ASSIGNED to qubit states.

Hiley himself seems to distinguish between the two kinds of information in his paper, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228799590_From_the_Heisenberg_picture_to_Bohm_A_new_perspective_on_active_information_and_its_relation_to_Shannon_information, Here he says: “Firstly it is important to emphasize once again that our concept of (active) information (quantum potential) is not 'information for us' but objective information for the particle. It was very evident from the papers presented at this meeting that the word 'information' was being used in the sense of 'information for us'. Here I see my task as attempting to relate these two very different notions.” Shannon information is of course different from ‘meanings’ and thoughts.  For example, god and dog have the same amount of Shannon information.

BTW, whether those who do not want to relate quantum theory to Vedanta like it or not, that all matter is made of quantum particles, which are packets of de Broglie phase waves with speeds greater than that of light and therefore not directly observable by senses, is consistent with the Sankhya theory that gross matter is made of Tanmatras  Tanmatras are said to be 'subtle' (meaning not directly observable by senses) abilities underlying the activities of senses. Thus Deepak's statements: "Matter is a concept", "Matter is non-material" are also consistent with both quantum theory and Sankhya.

Syamala Hari

---

From: "'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 6:21 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Response to your question on Bohm's theory

--
----------------------------
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/936C9655-89E1-4EBA-AF49-353663E80823%40aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

 

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com] 

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/02E8ED3F-8F08-4641-8A89-6D76E39629A2%40aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
----------------------------
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
 

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/fc85b2c2295e41928a8baa1d9eefc134%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
----------------------------
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/ABFBEDA2-DEF0-4CEE-A94E-88C69D3C65EE%40ulb.ac.be.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
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/936C9655-89E1-4EBA-AF49-353663E80823%40aol.com.

[Tusar Nath Mohapatra]

Thanks Bruno for appreciation and positive assessment. You have raised enough anticipation in this forum about your theory which, let's hope, will be unveiled by you someday so that it can be understood by non-specialists like me without being tortured by mathematical symbols or equations.

I have, however, added the final four lines to the above poem as follows:

It's agreed that we are far away
From any semblance of a solution
This should mean as a very sobering attitude
In the face of human finitude.

All the best,

Tusar

https://selforum.blogspot.in/2017/05/we-are-just-spending-time-writing-words.html

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAOzTBUNw0tFTnFGQYcMCw-8nBXd2Gk52_STwUy2jCQ4%3Dydc%3DFQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/448A03F9-7486-45B9-99F9-9D5DEB8F12C2%40aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/CA%2BLR%2B%3DUtB-UL3og_i9RnEagZjk7D10YGA%3D8sEH2qZT65OjEpig%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/43AD4CB5-EAA4-4D65-9D70-D2C338B60190%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 May 2017, at 20:30, Tusar Nath Mohapatra wrote:

Thanks Bruno for appreciation and positive assessment.

You are welcome Tusar.

You have raised enough anticipation in this forum about your theory which, let's hope, will be unveiled by you someday so that it can be understood by non-specialists like me without being tortured by mathematical symbols or equations.

I think that when we try to explain the theology of the numbers, without equation, we get the discourse of the mystics, including the silence of those who have gone sufficiently far to know well where they need to stay silent. We get even closer to the mystics open to rationalism, like the antic greek neoplatonists, like Plotinus, or perhaps even closer to the neo-pythagoreans (like, perhaps, Moderatus of Gades, if some accounts are correct, because, unlike Plotinus, we have lost all his writings). 

Of course, that might be preposterous, and I might be biased. 

Without equation, I want to refer you to the proof of the immortality of the soul by Socrates/Plato. 

Yet, the amazing thing which I try to convey, is that by making the assumption of the finitude of its body (a reasonable version of mechanism), a large class of machines will already ¨find*, by themselves, that they have a non definable first person self (which can be used as a "meta-definition" of the soul), and that such a soul is immortal (in a context which is hard to describe, and this might be for the worst and the best: open problem).

Gödel" incompleteness is that the universal machine is for ever never completely semantically satisfied, from its point of view. 

What many people miss, although it was already present in Gödel's 1931 paper, is that  the machines, alluded above, can justify their own incompleteness. The machine understands that their are ignorant about something, and that it is big and partially explorable, in many different ways. They already know (in a precise technical sense) that the more they learn about It, the bigger is their ignorance, like with a lantern in an infinite cave: the more you see, the more you see that you don't see. They know that about It, the more they know in "quantity", the less they know in proportion. They converge toward a sobering modesty (to use your word below).

I have, however, added the final four lines to the above poem as follows:

It's agreed that we are far away
From any semblance of a solution

I think we go close every thousand years. Then we drift away, by the usual human many attachments. Perhaps fear has some role, or some fear pathologies, or egocentric exploitations.

The virgin universal machine, I mean the not-yet-programmed one,  is at least sufficiently close and precise that we can test "her" physical theory. 

But once programmed and enslaved, they too drive away. And the One becomes the Multiple, "again".

The theological truth contains secret parts (already well described by the machine "guardian angel". This gives some access to the machine, to what is beyond it.

I was alluding to the modal logic G*,  I will say some word on it later). The machine remains silent on this. That secret parts is very often well described by mystics, but also by smokers of Salvia divinorum. Some things are not supposed to be publicly asserted on the "terrestrial plane". it would spoil the terrestrial life, a bit like a thriller movie can be spoiled by someone telling the end of the thriller.

Are we really far away of the solution? 

Or is it that we are so close to it all the time that we forget to look at it?

Perhaps we prefer not to look at it, and try to forget when we do? 

Or we get just blinded by the enormous amount of prejudices that we drag when lost in very long deep histories? So far from Home?

The universal machine is not the solution. It is on the contrary the terrible child which raises all the questions and put a lot of mess in Plato Heaven.

But sometimes, it can wake up and recognize itself in some others, and can recall where it comes from, in a lasting, or not, moment.

This should mean as a very sobering attitude
In the face of human finitude.

I don't know. I suspect something sobering, certainly, but perhaps accompanied by something transcendentally funny also, which gives some price to our local body-mechanical-finiteness.

Mortality is an illusion.

Immortality is an infinite illusion. 

Technological immortality (or approximations), like the goal of the transhumanists is Nirvana procrastination, or Samsara Complacency.

Hmm... Now I have to look at the equations to see if I am not rambling too much :)

All the best,

Bruno

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/CA%2BLR%2B%3DXcm-s5M1nxRL-r3iHWBf73rAZeLks--oOQvUJCJ3bp1A%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[NYIKOS, PETER]

You are being exteremely evasive, Jack. Your claims read like you live in an parallel universe, with completely different physical laws and history than ours. They may be correct where a vast multiverse, consisting of infinitely many parallel universes of which ours is just one, is concerned, but you have an uphill struggle to explain how they are supposed to apply to our universe.

 I've described our physical universe the way the best science currently sees it, and I am absolutely correct about what I said about probability whereas Don is not. So, how can I be unable "to think about the problem"?

If you cannot explain what your ramblings are about  to me, a Ph.D. with over forty years as an educator and even longer experience with philosophy, including the philosophy of mind,  I doubt that anyone can either understand them or explain what makes them worthy of assent, to anyone.

I also am a Roman Catholic, and hence no stranger to the distinction between the material and the spiritual. And so I am no materialist, but on the other hand, I do not go in for ramblings bearing no resemblance to anything Christianity teaches.

Peter Nyikos

---

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 8:07 PM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Response to your question on Bohm's theory

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5771DC41-C7D0-456B-9157-688316CA0D2B%40aol.com.

[JACK SARFATTI]

I see Peter you are a mathematician

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Albert Einstein
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins102390.html

On May 29, 2017, at 6:15 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

On May 29, 2017, at 5:42 PM, NYIKOS, PETER <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:

You are being exteremely evasive, Jack.

Not at all. You have not done your homework.

Until you understand these papers I have cited many times, you have no true conception of what the problem is and what questions are worth asking.

2.  arXiv:1510.06712 [pdf, ps, other]

A Live Alternative to Quantum Spooks

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 7 pages; minor revisions

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

3.  arXiv:1508.01140 [pdf, other]

Disentangling the Quantum World

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 17 pages, 3 figures; significant revisions in response to referees' comments

Journal-ref: Entropy, v17, 7752-7767 (2015)

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

4.  arXiv:1307.7744 [pdf, other]

Dispelling the Quantum Spooks -- a Clue that Einstein Missed?

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 16 pages, 5 figures, 2 boxes

Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

Your claims read like you live in an parallel universe, with completely different physical laws and history than ours. They may be correct where a vast multiverse, consisting of infinitely many parallel universes of which ours is just one, is concerned, but you have an uphill struggle to explain how they are supposed to apply to our universe.

 I've described our physical universe the way the best science currently sees it, and I am absolutely correct about what I said about probability whereas Don is not. So, how can I be unable "to think about the problem"?

If you cannot explain what your ramblings are about  to me, a Ph.D.

In what subject?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634780EC6C3%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.

[JACK SARFATTI]

On May 29, 2017, at 5:42 PM, NYIKOS, PETER <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:

You are being exteremely evasive, Jack.

Not at all. You have not done your homework.

Until you understand these papers I have cited many times, you have no true conception of what the problem is and what questions are worth asking.

2.  arXiv:1510.06712 [pdf, ps, other]

A Live Alternative to Quantum Spooks

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 7 pages; minor revisions

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

3.  arXiv:1508.01140 [pdf, other]

Disentangling the Quantum World

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 17 pages, 3 figures; significant revisions in response to referees' comments

Journal-ref: Entropy, v17, 7752-7767 (2015)

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

4.  arXiv:1307.7744 [pdf, other]

Dispelling the Quantum Spooks -- a Clue that Einstein Missed?

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

Comments: 16 pages, 5 figures, 2 boxes

Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

Your claims read like you live in an parallel universe, with completely different physical laws and history than ours. They may be correct where a vast multiverse, consisting of infinitely many parallel universes of which ours is just one, is concerned, but you have an uphill struggle to explain how they are supposed to apply to our universe.

 I've described our physical universe the way the best science currently sees it, and I am absolutely correct about what I said about probability whereas Don is not. So, how can I be unable "to think about the problem"?

If you cannot explain what your ramblings are about  to me, a Ph.D.

In what subject?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634780EC6C3%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.

[Tusar Nath Mohapatra]

Dear Bruno,

I'm not competent to comment on all that you say here, but can understand to some extent the weight of your problems and, may be, their possible dystopian repercussions.

Since you mentioned transhumanists, I'm pasting four extracts below for added perspective. Your namesakes, - Giordano Bruno and Bruno Latour, - are important players in this emerging scenario, incidentally.

Thanks,
Tusar
May 30, 2017

Extracts:
1. "In short, for Śāntideva, the world actually is incomplete and lacking, and we misunderstand it if we don’t see this lack – a lack at least partially expressed in the notion of non-self. For ibn Sīnā it’s just that the world would be incomplete without God. But since he takes God to exist, for him the world is complete; it is as it should be. The similarity between the two is that we don’t adequately understand the world, it is incomplete in intelligibility, without the key idea of God or non-self."
Posted on 28 May 2017 by Amod Lele
http://indianphilosophyblog.org/2017/05/28/incompleteness-in-knowledge-and-existence/

2. "People of scientisic leanings are usually the first to notice that Husserl is playing this game. And since the game is directly at odds with their own program for bringing consciousness back into the natural world, they quickly become angry and dismissive toward Husserl. They see him as an idealist and as nothing more than an idealist... For Badiou really isn’t an innovator at all on this point, while Husserl is the biggest innovator of it in nearly 200 years, and arguably in the entire history of philosophy." comment on the Rorty quip from Object-Oriented Philosophy by doctorzamalek (Graham Harman) "The unity of objects, for Husserl, is in those objects themselves, not in a human subject that bundles or counts them."
https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/comment-on-the-rorty-quip/

3. "Joshua Ramey - The Hermetic Deleuze: Philosophy and Spiritual ... (2012) Description: Gilles Deleuze drew on a vast array of source material, from philosophy and psychoanalysis to science and art. Yet scholars have largely neglected one of the intellectual currents underlying his work: Western esotericism, specifically the lineage of hermetic thought that extends from Late Antiquity into the Renaissance through the work of figures such as Iamblichus, Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, and Giordano Bruno. In this book, Joshua Ramey examines the extent to which Deleuze's ethics, metaphysics, and politics were informed by, and can only be fully understood through, this hermetic tradition."
https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-hermetic-deleuze

4. "Following Bruno Latour, there have been articulations of the empirical as compositional, or, in Donna Haraway’s (2015, 161) terms, as the “compost” of emerging worlds. Matter has a heartbeat. In what Karen Barad (2003, 817) calls “the process of mattering,” things come to matter in both senses of the term. Life is deliteralized in a robust realism of energetic surfaces, qualities, and remainders that withdraw from phenomenological and representational efforts at reduction and paraphrase (see Harman 2011, 2012). Categories are at best an oblique mode of access to the generativity of singularities taking place (Harman 2008)." by Kathleen Stewart , Issue 32.2, May 2017
https://culanth.org/articles/908-in-the-world-that-affect-proposed

...

Tusar

https://selforum.blogspot.in/2017/05/we-are-just-spending-time-writing-words.html

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BLR%2B%3DUtB-UL3og_i9RnEagZjk7D10YGA%3D8sEH2qZT65OjEpig%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/43AD4CB5-EAA4-4D65-9D70-D2C338B60190%40ulb.ac.be.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/CA%2BLR%2B%3DXcm-s5M1nxRL-r3iHWBf73rAZeLks--oOQvUJCJ3bp1A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/502E0D44-0572-4250-BCA5-84B9EFD6442C%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Tusar,

On 30 May 2017, at 11:18, Tusar Nath Mohapatra wrote:

I'm not competent to comment on all that you say here, but can understand to some extent the weight of your problems and, may be, their possible dystopian repercussions.

Yet, you just cited, and provided some interesting links on Sri Aurobindo, which propositions are very close to the one by the Universal Machine, notably on matter, in his "Matter" text. Quite interesting.

Then what I say is that arithmeticall ideally correct machine have a very similar discourse.

I appreciate Sri Aurobindo since a long time, but it is only by reading more recently his book on Heraclite that I begin to think he might be even closer to the universal machine than Plotinus, and this says something!

Since you mentioned transhumanists, I'm pasting four extracts below for added perspective. Your namesakes, - Giordano Bruno and Bruno Latour, - are important players in this emerging scenario, incidentally.

Giordano Bruno seems more serious than Bruno Latour, but then I read only part of Latour's literature. He seems not aware of the mind-body problem, and he takes the physical world for granted, without making clear that it is an assumption. Whitehead seems more honest/correct on this, despite him too is unclear of what he assumes, and what he does not assume. I avoid that kind of literature, because there are too much ambiguities making too much large the class of possible interpretations.

Extracts:
1. "In short, for Śāntideva, the world actually is incomplete and lacking, and we misunderstand it if we don’t see this lack – a lack at least partially expressed in the notion of non-self. For ibn Sīnā it’s just that the world would be incomplete without God. But since he takes God to exist, for him the world is complete; it is as it should be. The similarity between the two is that we don’t adequately understand the world, it is incomplete in intelligibility, without the key idea of God or non-self."
Posted on 28 May 2017 by Amod Lele
http://indianphilosophyblog.org/2017/05/28/incompleteness-in-knowledge-and-existence/

This makes a lot of sense, and fits well the machine's classical philosophy.

2. "People of scientisic leanings are usually the first to notice that Husserl is playing this game. And since the game is directly at odds with their own program for bringing consciousness back into the natural world, they quickly become angry and dismissive toward Husserl. They see him as an idealist and as nothing more than an idealist... For Badiou really isn’t an innovator at all on this point, while Husserl is the biggest innovator of it in nearly 200 years, and arguably in the entire history of philosophy." comment on the Rorty quip from Object-Oriented Philosophy by doctorzamalek (Graham Harman) "The unity of objects, for Husserl, is in those objects themselves, not in a human subject that bundles or counts them."
https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/comment-on-the-rorty-quip/

I guess the machine is closer to Husserl than to the people with scientific leaning, which are religious believer in Matter (the big "M" is for any notion of matter assumed as primary, or primitive).

3. "Joshua Ramey - The Hermetic Deleuze: Philosophy and Spiritual ... (2012) Description: Gilles Deleuze drew on a vast array of source material, from philosophy and psychoanalysis to science and art. Yet scholars have largely neglected one of the intellectual currents underlying his work: Western esotericism, specifically the lineage of hermetic thought that extends from Late Antiquity into the Renaissance through the work of figures such as Iamblichus, Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, and Giordano Bruno. In this book, Joshua Ramey examines the extent to which Deleuze's ethics, metaphysics, and politics were informed by, and can only be fully understood through, this hermetic tradition."
https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-hermetic-deleuze

Deleuze has been useful for me, with his book "La logique du sens". But I am not so much a follower of hermetic thought, and already in Plotinus time, they add nonsense, it seems to me. 

If you read Plotinus' ennead on Numbers, he is incredibly "modern", close to the problems seen by Cantor which led to Gödel. But Iamblichus "theology of Arithmetic" is pseudo-mystical numerology. I can appreciate it, because I do love the fist ten numbers on which the book is all about, but then, I take very seriously *all* the numbers, and Iamblichus seems to me committing a sort of special number idolatry (which was quite common at this time, and the pythagoreans have some responsibility). 

4. "Following Bruno Latour, there have been articulations of the empirical as compositional, or, in Donna Haraway’s (2015, 161) terms, as the “compost” of emerging worlds. Matter has a heartbeat. In what Karen Barad (2003, 817) calls “the process of mattering,” things come to matter in both senses of the term. Life is deliteralized in a robust realism of energetic surfaces, qualities, and remainders that withdraw from phenomenological and representational efforts at reduction and paraphrase (see Harman 2011, 2012). Categories are at best an oblique mode of access to the generativity of singularities taking place (Harman 2008)." by Kathleen Stewart , Issue 32.2, May 2017
https://culanth.org/articles/908-in-the-world-that-affect-proposed

...

I will say that I simply do not understand such kind of talk. Feel free to develop if you think that there is something interesting there. I might just miss it.

Thanks for your comments, and for the links to Sri Aurobindo. I might comment some paragraph of Aurobindo later, as it is the exams duties period, and my scheduling get more and more tight.

Best regards,

Bruno

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/CA%2BLR%2B%3DVE0MenRQ0nUggJFmS3ZD%2BbUvGhss_Y%3DvSQXjuGd%3DJWiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Klee Irwin]

At least all the physicists who work here at Quantum Gravity Research would disagree with the brilliant Einstein on that.

 

Instead, we’d refer to the great Galileo, who said:

 

The universe cannot be read until we have learnt the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word.

 

Here laws are certain. For example, the Pythagorean theorem. These are called “first principles”. And there are the most logical place to hang your hat and start somewhere to build up to a way of understanding reality.

 

Peter, there is no doubt that all of the particles and forces in the standard model of particle physics are gauge symmetry unified according to the vertices of the eight dimensional shape called the Gossett polytope. We make a dynamical quasicrystal (mathematically) from the lattice built of this polytope and find that it behaves as a topological quantum network, wherein we can recover gauge symmetry unification physics.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/92A4C0F1-3D21-4EFC-8A67-0D418AFE2EFA%40aol.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Jack,

So we are to accept this on Einstein's authority. I would rather trust what Poincare, Cantor or Hilbert have to say on this.

Priyedarshi

---

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 8:07 PM

To: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com

Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Response to your question on Bohm's theory

On May 27, 2017, at 3:42 PM, NYIKOS, PETER <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:

Don, the slogan " Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen" assumes a universe  which is basically unchanging. Ours is not that kind of universe.  Hydrogen is being converted into heavier elements in an irreversible process, and Hoyle's steady state theory, which assumes continual creation of hydrogen from nothing (or from decaying neutrons that come from nothing) is out of fashion.

Moreover, our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to something called "negative energy," so that even if the steady state theory were true, there is no real chance of the energy of the universe coming together at all, let alone into a single conscious system.

not even wrong, you do not know how to think about this problem

By the way, "possible" does NOT mean positive probability.  In a universe which goes on without
end forever, with coins flipped infinitely many times, all positive numbers are too large to express the  probability that the limit of the ratio of heads to tails does not exist. And yet, it is possible for the limit not to exist.

On the other hand, a universe which does not go on forever cannot realize the slogan, because it does not  encompass "enough time."

Peter Nyikos
Mathematics Professor    
University of South Carolina (Columbia)
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

---

From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com [online_sadhu...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Don Johnson [id....@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:42 PM

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; science

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAJQRYrcxuUc0fUX%2B99vGTCUfRS6T0hOjNhw-qad-Xw5Kxqjc4A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634780E8282%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/5771DC41-C7D0-456B-9157-688316CA0D2B%40aol.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
----------------------------
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

...

[Message clipped]  

[Paul Werbos]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

As you know, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of mankind. The agreement with experiments is more than 1 part per billion. The cell phone in your pocket is a glowing tribute to it! And yet, debates about interpretation are going on for some 90 years without any resolution. In fact some Nobel laureates like Weinberg and ‘t Hooft do not believe in any interpretation! The reason for majority believing in Copenhagen interpretation is that it is mostly epistemological...

Bohm’s interpretation (theory) has to agree with experiments and well established theory like theory of relativity...

... It would be nice to continue this discussion. I would like to know about feelings of various members of this group about Bohm’s model.

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

These are all complex, important issues, which have generated a huge amount of secondary confusion as the waves of thought 

get reflected many, many times, like an image reflected in a series of fun house mirrors. 

That kind of reflection and distortion happens in many areas. For example, I just returned from giving a plenary talk at the 

International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN17), where some people casually attacked that "bad old Von Neumann model of computing." But Von Neumann, like Bohm and Einstein, learned and grew and changed many times in his life. At the IJCNN history session, I discussed the important conversations of Von Neumann, Wiener and McCulloch which actually created the neural network field, a new paradigm which continues to grow and is in a major growth spurt right now. Bohm and Einstein also went through stages of thought, which have confused other people. 

To begin with, does Bohm's model contradict special relativity? I have an old (unreliable?) impression that Bohm came from upstate Pennsylvania to Princeton, to work with Einstein, and that his most important driving goal in physics was to strengthen Einstein's view of reality, which I lately call "Einsteinian materialism." Einstein himself worked hard to develop a kind of new unified field theory in his later years, using new differential geometry, but I myself have mostly worked with the earlier version of his vision, epitomized in the "already unified field theory" which won John Wheeler (of Princeton) the Nobel Prize. 

Einsteinian materialism appears at first to contradict the long emerging feeling in physics that "the universe looks more like a great mind than a great machine." But just as Wheeler discovered that ideas which appear to be in conflict may already be unified, if we look more closely, I now believe that Einsteinian materialism and "universe as mind" are ALREADY consistent with each other, to a degree I did not even consider when I did not understand the mathematics as well as I do now. Still, even a brief explanation of how this could be does require a little digression and background:

http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2017/05/father-of-quantum-computing-writes-on.html

http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2017/05/spirit-lessons-from-tlingits-and.html

But what IS Bohm's model, and how does it fit with relativity and quantum mechanics?

When many people talk about "Bohm's model," they are referring either to his earlier work on the "pilot wave" concept (which I attribute more to Louis De Broglie, whom I discussed this with at length years ago; I recently scanned the letters he sent me) or to his later work with Hiley. Hiley has remained active, as Brian Josephson on this list knows very well. If I were Bohm, perhaps I would have even published a short summary list of alternative models like "Bohm 1, Bohm 2" or "Bohm 3," to reduce confusion. Is it possible that some "Bohm's models" are still other models developed by followers of Bohm? 

At one time, De Broglie and Bohm hoped that a "pilot wave" formulation of the simple, original nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation, based on a concept of "Q potential," could explain the quantum mechanical behavior of the electron in a way consistent with Einsteinian materialism. (The Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics was not.) But in a paper in the 1970's, I pointed out that this would only work in the general case of N electrons if the Q potential were a function of many dimensions. Thus the Q potential effort ended as a mere complicated reinvention of the "many worlds" or "multiverse" theory of the cosmos, developed by Hugh Everett and John Wheeler (more Princeton here!), and developed much further by David Deutsch of Oxford (the father of digital quantum computing). 

I have the impression that Bohm decided to stay with the Q potential kind of approach, and embrace the nonlocality of the many worlds school of thought, while De Broglie himself (and I) looked for another way, trying to resurrect the full original  Einstein vision, which is consistent with experiment only if one makes different assumptions about the nature of time and causality. That can be done, and it is not 

only a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of testable differences in competing theories. Furthermore, the differences are fully testable in the realm of quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is NOT a complete or fully resolved matter at all.

I remember when I took graduate courses in physics at Harvard, when everyone said that QED was the most successful, fully tested theory in all the history of physics, that it is highly precise in all of its predictions, and that it is a "done deal" in terms of basic physics. People would say "if you want to learn something fundamentally new, don't do QED." They believed that modern electronics and photonics (and phononics etc)  "are all just applied QED."

Then I ended up running the research program in the Engineering Directorate of NSF supporting "applied QED" for the electronics and photonics areas, very complex and serious areas full of lots of experimental exploration, and learned more and more from the new community that "No, QED is NOT a done deal. Many, many really fundamental things still need to be done and discovered, though yes computation and approximation theory are part of it." (For example, see my paper at arxiv with Klimeck and Dowling inaugurating the NSF QMHP activity, which ended when I retired in 2015. My opposite number in NSF's DMR division also retired, and Dean Poor of Princeton legitimately wondered what was happening -- to this area, to climate change, to social science, to evolution.... even to NASA!)  

I deeply regret not taking the course in quantum optics taught by Glauber at Harvard. I certainly considered it, and wondered what was really behind his door as I walked by it on the way to Schwinger's class. But I did not realize that he was teaching the scalar version of a whole new stream of fundamental mathematics fundamental to Einstein's program, or that the laboratory aspect with lasers would have let me do myself either or both of the fundamental new experiments we need done, to clarify the core issues before us now regarding quantum measurement and how it really works. One of those experiments, the all-angles triphoton experiment, is described in Werbos and Dolmatova (published in Quantum Information Processing, reposted at www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf). More recently, I came up with a messier but easier design which would require only two entangled photons, which a friend says he will be doing fairly soon. 

But where did the pilot waves go? The Q potential... well, that aspect went away, in my view. But De Broglie's core concept of pilot wave 

(as in his book with Vigier, which I cite in the recent paper) is a key part of how I make a BRIDGE between the deeper Einsteinian level of reality (which addresses gravity and addresses why particles exist at all) and the level of CORRECTED QED. To describe our mundane level of life, as "shadows in Plato's cave," it is enough to understand corrected QED, which is equivalent to David Deutsch's view BUT WITH A DIFFERENT VERSION OF QUANTUM MEASUREMENT.  The pilot wave concept is a crucial piece of how we CONNECT that level of physics and life to a deeper level.. a level which I understand mathematically this week better than I did just a few weeks ago, when I went to Alaska. (No papers yet, only a few entries in my Samsung Galaxy Tab and related thoughts.)

But now, this week, I go back to more mundane things, all in the realm of truly applied QED, true electronic and photonic technology.

One week, one lifetime, at a time.

Best regards,

    Paul

     

 

[Paul Werbos]

[JACK SARFATTI]

Rod Sutherland's papers clearly answer the numerous misconceptions about Bohm's now up-dated fully relativistic pilot wave theory in modern form. Until you understand what Sutherland is about you are all stumbling in the dark with obsolete ideas.  The "particle" theory is now well developed. There is still work to do on the local gauge post-quantum field theory of spin 2 gravity, spin 1  EM, weak, strong & spin 0 Higgs condensate fields.

On May 30, 2017, at 6:45 AM, Paul Werbos <wer...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

As you know, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of mankind. The agreement with experiments is more than 1 part per billion. The cell phone in your pocket is a glowing tribute to it! And yet, debates about interpretation are going on for some 90 years without any resolution. In fact some Nobel laureates like Weinberg and ‘t Hooft do not believe in any interpretation! The reason for majority believing in Copenhagen interpretation is that it is mostly epistemological…

[Paul Werbos]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

Rod Sutherland's papers clearly answer the numerous misconceptions about Bohm's now up-dated fully relativistic pilot wave theory in modern form. Until you understand what Sutherland is about you are all stumbling in the dark with obsolete ideas.  

Note that Jack is referring to a "Bohm model" not developed by Bohm but by others trying to follow one of his paths.

Many of us will be able to understand the discussion better if it is simply called the "Sutherland" model. 

The De Broglie/Bohm nonrelativistic pilot wave model using Q potential was already rejected long ago for other reasons, as I mentioned. 

Jack appears to be saying that all physics NOT based on Sutherland, including mine, Glauber's, David Deutsch's or De Broglie's or Einstein's, would simply be irrelevant and hopeless just because it does not follow Sutherland. I do not find that to be a complete argument against all those alternatives. Based on my prior experience with treatises which start from such declarations (and on the other demands on my time), I am less likely to read Sutherland at this point. (Then again, I did not have enough respect for Einstein's work when I was 14 or 15 years old, because of the secondary claims and incomplete arguments I had seen in secondary sources. Perhaps Sutherland could be more worthwhile than my present best guess, but I would have to see another level of substance to even consider that.)

Best of luck,

    Paul

 

[BMP]

Dear Friends

Namaste. It is not wise to merely make a knee-jerk statement or dismissal of the quote from Einstein mentioned in this post without understanding the very important context in which it was made. It is actually from a translation of a German speech Einstein gave in Berlin in 1921 at the Prussian Academy of Science. 

He was trying to make the point that:

 

One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts.

 

He then continues:

 

. . . it is mathematics which affords the exact natural sciences a certain measure of security, to which without mathematics they could not attain.

 

At this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?

 

In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this:- As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

In other words, mathematics works within its own framework of certainty based upon a set of axioms of mathematics thus yielding specifically determinable results. There is, however, no reason to expect that the reality of Nature obeys such axioms or that observations and experiences of Nature should in any way correspond to the realm of mathematical logic. Thus the employment of mathematics in science is more or less just to give the scientists comfort and security rather than any real or ontological connection between mathematics and science. Furthermore, Godel did much to dispel even the certainty that mathematics falsely claimed for itself. 

So far as the touted accuracy of quantum theory is concerned, it must be understood that even false scientific theories give amazingly accurate results. The theory that the Moon dog can be chased away from eating the Sun god by beating a gong works flawlessly 100% of the time. That quantum mechanics works so accurately for a single electron or even two particles, ignores the fact that there is no such thing as a single electron or two in the universe. The accuracy of the whole theory breaks down when we consider any real life situations without approximations.

It may be uncomfortable for scientists to think about these difficult but very real problems that afflict the very basis of modern science, but it does not alleviate or eliminate such problems by ignoring them either. It does afford an opportunity to look for alternatives to the current way of thinking about and doing science. 

Sincerely,

B Madhva Puri, Ph. D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http://bvisc.org

Facebok

[JACK SARFATTI]

On May 30, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

Rod Sutherland's papers clearly answer the numerous misconceptions about Bohm's now up-dated fully relativistic pilot wave theory in modern form. Until you understand what Sutherland is about you are all stumbling in the dark with obsolete ideas.  

Note that Jack is referring to a "Bohm model" not developed by Bohm but by others trying to follow one of his paths.

Many of us will be able to understand the discussion better if it is simply called the "Sutherland" model. 

It's the completion of what Bohm started in 1952.

The De Broglie/Bohm nonrelativistic pilot wave model using Q potential was already rejected long ago for other reasons, as I mentioned. 

Rejected by people who did not and still do not rightly understand it.

Jack appears to be saying that all physics NOT based on Sutherland, including mine, Glauber's, David Deutsch's or De Broglie's or Einstein's, would simply be irrelevant and hopeless just because it does not follow Sutherland.

Wrong. Sutherland's theory completes what De Broglie, Einstein and Bohm started. 

I do not find that to be a complete argument against all those alternatives. Based on my prior experience with treatises which start from such declarations (and on the other demands on my time), I am less likely to read Sutherland at this point. (Then again, I did not have enough respect for Einstein's work when I was 14 or 15 years old, because of the secondary claims and incomplete arguments I had seen in secondary sources. Perhaps Sutherland could be more worthwhile than my present best guess, but I would have to see another level of substance to even consider that.)

You remind me of the Pope's men here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610,^[1] culminating with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism (Italian: il processo a Galileo Galilei).^[2]

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543). Galileo's initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.^[3]

Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo, now an old man, published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.

Best of luck,

    Paul

 

[Klee Irwin]

Bohm's model is deterministic. We believe it is incorrect in that regard. But we agree with that model in so far as the idea that there is no duality were a particle is either a wave or a particle but never both. Instead, the wave and the particle are part of a single system that is self interactive. 

This has a first principles geometric interpretation in our model.

--
----------------------------
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/CACLqmgcsNTAMVBBeuRg1s5%3DiU-8ZO7STpb9_KB6%2BrZ%3DCM5Vuvg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

Many of us will be able to understand the discussion better if it is simply called the "Sutherland" model. 

It's the completion of what Bohm started in 1952.

Sure, and Einstein was the completion of Lorentz. I doubt either of them would appreciate that fuzzification.

We all have many intellectual roots, but why not simply refer to a guy's theory by his name instead of someone else's? 

The De Broglie/Bohm nonrelativistic pilot wave model using Q potential was already rejected long ago for other reasons, as I mentioned. 

Rejected by people who did not and still do not rightly understand it.

Wow! So you reject the nonrelativistic pilot wave equation, but assert that anyone ELSE who rejects it can automatically be concluded not to understand that equation?

Hey, man, De Broglie himself realized the need to move on from that equation. (Perhaps I should post the letters he sent me in the 1970's.) Logically you are suggesting that De Broglie himself did not understand it.

I can understand how these issues raise strong emotions in you, and you remind me of when you compared yourself to the effective communicator Trump, who also uninhibited play to his emotions. Still, I do not expect that further discussion of that kind of  verbal output would be a productive use of my time right now. I am sorry that I hurt one of your hot buttons, really, but when you are in a Trumpian hot button state... best talk again some other day.

It is a shame that your emotions blinded you from paying attention to the bit about time, which is far more important to moving forward than 

the issue of whether we call Sutherland Sutherland or call him by a different name. 

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear B Madhava Puri,

On 30 May 2017, at 23:24, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Friends

Namaste. It is not wise to merely make a knee-jerk statement or dismissal of the quote from Einstein mentioned in this post without understanding the very important context in which it was made. It is actually from a translation of a German speech Einstein gave in Berlin in 1921 at the Prussian Academy of Science. 

He was trying to make the point that:

 

One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts.

 

He then continues:

 

. . . it is mathematics which affords the exact natural sciences a certain measure of security, to which without mathematics they could not attain.

 

At this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?

 

In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this:- As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

In other words, mathematics works within its own framework of certainty based upon a set of axioms of mathematics thus yielding specifically determinable results. There is, however, no reason to expect that the reality of Nature obeys such axioms or that observations and experiences of Nature should in any way correspond to the realm of mathematical logic. Thus the employment of mathematics in science is more or less just to give the scientists comfort and security rather than any real or ontological connection between mathematics and science. Furthermore, Godel did much to dispel even the certainty that mathematics falsely claimed for itself. 

But that could mean that "mathematics is real". That is, we can doubt it, to some extent. Note also that we have to not doubt too much some part of mathematics (indeed elementary arithmetic) to get the doubting conclusion. 

So far as the touted accuracy of quantum theory is concerned, it must be understood that even false scientific theories give amazingly accurate results. The theory that the Moon dog can be chased away from eating the Sun god by beating a gong works flawlessly 100% of the time. That quantum mechanics works so accurately for a single electron or even two particles, ignores the fact that there is no such thing as a single electron or two in the universe. The accuracy of the whole theory breaks down when we consider any real life situations without approximations.

It may be uncomfortable for scientists to think about these difficult but very real problems that afflict the very basis of modern science, but it does not alleviate or eliminate such problems by ignoring them either. It does afford an opportunity to look for alternatives to the current way of thinking about and doing science. 

Mechanism might be false, but it leads to a clear conclusion: the physical reality is not the fundamental reality. Physical reality is reducible to the theology of numbers. This makes Mechanism testable, and indeed it implies the quantum formalism, and its many worlds, or better many-dreams, interpretations. It is an open problem to see if the Hamiltonian is physical (and just deducible from theology) or geographical and thus contingent.

Best regards,

Bruno Marchal

--
----------------------------
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/45369807.3650512.1496179482960%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 May 2017, at 20:27, Paul Werbos wrote:

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
As you know, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of mankind. The agreement with experiments is more than 1 part per billion. The cell phone in your pocket is a glowing tribute to it! And yet, debates about interpretation are going on for some 90 years without any resolution. In fact some Nobel laureates like Weinberg and ‘t Hooft do not believe in any interpretation! The reason for majority believing in Copenhagen interpretation is that it is mostly epistemological...
Bohm’s interpretation (theory) has to agree with experiments and well established theory like theory of relativity...
... It would be nice to continue this discussion. I would like to know about feelings of various members of this group about Bohm’s model.

For me Bohm is a many world theory, + a non local potential to make one world more real than the others. That introduces a non locality, and a non determinacy in the 3p picture, so I doubt this is needed. Especially when you get the many-worlds already from elementary arithmetic, when you assume mechanism. 

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

These are all complex, important issues, which have generated a huge amount of secondary confusion as the waves of thought 
get reflected many, many times, like an image reflected in a series of fun house mirrors. 

That kind of reflection and distortion happens in many areas. For example, I just returned from giving a plenary talk at the 
International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN17), where some people casually attacked that "bad old Von Neumann model of computing." But Von Neumann, like Bohm and Einstein, learned and grew and changed many times in his life. At the IJCNN history session, I discussed the important conversations of Von Neumann, Wiener and McCulloch which actually created the neural network field, a new paradigm which continues to grow and is in a major growth spurt right now. Bohm and Einstein also went through stages of thought, which have confused other people. 

To begin with, does Bohm's model contradict special relativity? I have an old (unreliable?) impression that Bohm came from upstate Pennsylvania to Princeton, to work with Einstein, and that his most important driving goal in physics was to strengthen Einstein's view of reality, which I lately call "Einsteinian materialism." Einstein himself worked hard to develop a kind of new unified field theory in his later years, using new differential geometry, but I myself have mostly worked with the earlier version of his vision, epitomized in the "already unified field theory" which won John Wheeler (of Princeton) the Nobel Prize. 

Einsteinian materialism appears at first to contradict the long emerging feeling in physics that "the universe looks more like a great mind than a great machine." But just as Wheeler discovered that ideas which appear to be in conflict may already be unified, if we look more closely, I now believe that Einsteinian materialism and "universe as mind" are ALREADY consistent with each other, to a degree I did not even consider when I did not understand the mathematics as well as I do now. Still, even a brief explanation of how this could be does require a little digression and background:

http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2017/05/father-of-quantum-computing-writes-on.html

http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2017/05/spirit-lessons-from-tlingits-and.html

But what IS Bohm's model, and how does it fit with relativity and quantum mechanics?

When many people talk about "Bohm's model," they are referring either to his earlier work on the "pilot wave" concept (which I attribute more to Louis De Broglie, whom I discussed this with at length years ago; I recently scanned the letters he sent me) or to his later work with Hiley. Hiley has remained active, as Brian Josephson on this list knows very well. If I were Bohm, perhaps I would have even published a short summary list of alternative models like "Bohm 1, Bohm 2" or "Bohm 3," to reduce confusion. Is it possible that some "Bohm's models" are still other models developed by followers of Bohm? 

At one time, De Broglie and Bohm hoped that a "pilot wave" formulation of the simple, original nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation, based on a concept of "Q potential," could explain the quantum mechanical behavior of the electron in a way consistent with Einsteinian materialism. (The Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics was not.) But in a paper in the 1970's, I pointed out that this would only work in the general case of N electrons if the Q potential were a function of many dimensions. Thus the Q potential effort ended as a mere complicated reinvention of the "many worlds" or "multiverse" theory of the cosmos, developed by Hugh Everett and John Wheeler (more Princeton here!), and developed much further by David Deutsch of Oxford (the father of digital quantum computing). 

I have the impression that Bohm decided to stay with the Q potential kind of approach, and embrace the nonlocality of the many worlds school of thought, while De Broglie himself (and I) looked for another way, trying to resurrect the full original  Einstein vision, which is consistent with experiment only if one makes different assumptions about the nature of time and causality. That can be done, and it is not 
only a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of testable differences in competing theories. Furthermore, the differences are fully testable in the realm of quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is NOT a complete or fully resolved matter at all.

I remember when I took graduate courses in physics at Harvard, when everyone said that QED was the most successful, fully tested theory in all the history of physics, that it is highly precise in all of its predictions, and that it is a "done deal" in terms of basic physics. People would say "if you want to learn something fundamentally new, don't do QED." They believed that modern electronics and photonics (and phononics etc)  "are all just applied QED."

Then I ended up running the research program in the Engineering Directorate of NSF supporting "applied QED" for the electronics and photonics areas, very complex and serious areas full of lots of experimental exploration, and learned more and more from the new community that "No, QED is NOT a done deal. Many, many really fundamental things still need to be done and discovered, though yes computation and approximation theory are part of it." (For example, see my paper at arxiv with Klimeck and Dowling inaugurating the NSF QMHP activity, which ended when I retired in 2015. My opposite number in NSF's DMR division also retired, and Dean Poor of Princeton legitimately wondered what was happening -- to this area, to climate change, to social science, to evolution.... even to NASA!)  

I deeply regret not taking the course in quantum optics taught by Glauber at Harvard. I certainly considered it, and wondered what was really behind his door as I walked by it on the way to Schwinger's class. But I did not realize that he was teaching the scalar version of a whole new stream of fundamental mathematics fundamental to Einstein's program, or that the laboratory aspect with lasers would have let me do myself either or both of the fundamental new experiments we need done, to clarify the core issues before us now regarding quantum measurement and how it really works. One of those experiments, the all-angles triphoton experiment, is described in Werbos and Dolmatova (published in Quantum Information Processing, reposted at www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf). More recently, I came up with a messier but easier design which would require only two entangled photons, which a friend says he will be doing fairly soon. 

But where did the pilot waves go? The Q potential... well, that aspect went away, in my view. But De Broglie's core concept of pilot wave 
(as in his book with Vigier, which I cite in the recent paper) is a key part of how I make a BRIDGE between the deeper Einsteinian level of reality (which addresses gravity and addresses why particles exist at all) and the level of CORRECTED QED. To describe our mundane level of life, as "shadows in Plato's cave," it is enough to understand corrected QED, which is equivalent to David Deutsch's view BUT WITH A DIFFERENT VERSION OF QUANTUM MEASUREMENT.  The pilot wave concept is a crucial piece of how we CONNECT that level of physics and life to a deeper level.. a level which I understand mathematically this week better than I did just a few weeks ago, when I went to Alaska. (No papers yet, only a few entries in my Samsung Galaxy Tab and related thoughts.)

But now, this week, I go back to more mundane things, all in the realm of truly applied QED, true electronic and photonic technology.
One week, one lifetime, at a time.

Einstein disliked a lot the idea of action at a distance. So I think he would have welcome, eventually, Everett's idea that there is no collapse, but he would not have been happy with Bohm non-local potential. I am not sure why you say that the Many-Worlds is Non-Local. The many-worlds explains why nature looks non local, in each branch of the universal wave, but the wave itself evolves without introducing any action or influence at a distance. I am aware that some people doubts this, but I have never found a proof of non locality which does not involve, often implicilty (like in EPR and Bell) the unicity of the outcomes of the experiences.

Bruno

Best regards,

    Paul


     

 

--
----------------------------
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/CACLqmgcsNTAMVBBeuRg1s5%3DiU-8ZO7STpb9_KB6%2BrZ%3DCM5Vuvg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Jeff, You are like a crank who claims to have a way of squaring the circle with compass and straightedge, and who, on being told that this has been proven impossible, says, "You can't tell until you have read my whole paper."

---

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 9:15 PM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: [MaybeSpam]Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Response to your question on Bohm's theory

---

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 8:07 PM

To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Response to your question on Bohm's theory

On May 27, 2017, at 3:42 PM, NYIKOS, PETER <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:

Don, the slogan " Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen" assumes a universe  which is basically unchanging. Ours is not that kind of universe.  Hydrogen is being converted into heavier elements in an irreversible process, and Hoyle's steady state theory, which assumes continual creation of hydrogen from nothing (or from decaying neutrons that come from nothing) is out of fashion.

Moreover, our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to something called "negative energy," so that even if the steady state theory were true, there is no real chance of the energy of the universe coming together at all, let alone into a single conscious system.

not even wrong, you do not know how to think about this problem

By the way, "possible" does NOT mean positive probability.  In a universe which goes on without
end forever, with coins flipped infinitely many times, all positive numbers are too large to express the  probability that the limit of the ratio of heads to tails does not exist. And yet, it is possible for the limit not to exist.

On the other hand, a universe which does not go on forever cannot realize the slogan, because it does not  encompass "enough time."

Peter Nyikos
Mathematics Professor    
University of South Carolina (Columbia)
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [online_sa...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Don Johnson [id....@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:42 PM

To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; science

-- 
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@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/0C03C513-1E35-4AC0-BD57-2973E81D94F7%40aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
----------------------------
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/CAJQRYrcxuUc0fUX%2B99vGTCUfRS6T0hOjNhw-qad-Xw5Kxqjc4A%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

----------------------------
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/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634780E8282%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
----------------------------
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/5771DC41-C7D0-456B-9157-688316CA0D2B%40aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

----------------------------
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/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634780EC6C3%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
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/9B19EE16-FE3E-4E5E-BA26-48633767ED56%40aol.com.

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:55:44AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> For me Bohm is a many world theory, + a non local potential to make one world
> more real than the others. That introduces a non locality, and a non
> determinacy in the 3p picture, so I doubt this is needed. Especially when you
> get the many-worlds already from elementary arithmetic, when you assume
> mechanism.

Hi Bruno,

I can appreciate many-worlds schemes as beautiful fiction, as consonant with
some theological systems, and as a weird suggestion from physics. But
there's a deep flaw: At least in the infinitely-branching versions of
many-worlds theories, decision means nothing, and ethics means nothing.
Whatever you would seem to decide, in some branch you've decided otherwise.
It evens out to zero.

A religion or philosophy in which choice is of no material consequence is
insane. To encourage people to be "scientific" at the cost of sanity is
evil. Of course, in such a world (or set of worlds) it's okay to be evil,
because that's just another empty choice. Thus we have the current
presidency of the U.S.

We know consciousness more directly than physics. We know the centrality of
choosing to consciousness more surely than we know anything about maths.

I realize I sound like Milton, when he wrote "And do not think of other
worlds!" Perhaps I'm missing something big here. I hope so. What sort of
ethics do you see as compatible with a many-worlds view?

Best,
Whit

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Whit,

On 01 Jun 2017, at 15:19, Whit Blauvelt wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:55:44AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> For me Bohm is a many world theory, + a non local potential to make
>> one world
>> more real than the others. That introduces a non locality, and a non
>> determinacy in the 3p picture, so I doubt this is needed.
>> Especially when you
>> get the many-worlds already from elementary arithmetic, when you
>> assume
>> mechanism.
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> I can appreciate many-worlds schemes as beautiful fiction, as
> consonant with
> some theological systems, and as a weird suggestion from physics. But
> there's a deep flaw: At least in the infinitely-branching versions of
> many-worlds theories, decision means nothing, and ethics means
> nothing.
> Whatever you would seem to decide, in some branch you've decided
> otherwise.
> It evens out to zero.

In which theory of mind? I don't think so at all.

To be sure I do not defend any position, and my contribution in
(applied) logic is that ,without any assumption on the physical
reality, if we are machine, the laws of physics are theorems in
machine's theology. This gives "many dreams" in arithmetic, and the
solid sharable ("material") dreams emerges from all dreams as a modal
view of arithmetic on itself. This is even "machine-independent" or
"formalism"-independent", you need only to assume one Turing universal
system.

Then mechanism explains that freely will exist, and consciousness, as
machine/number indubitable yet non justifiable truth, and that our
decisions counts, locally, and even globally. But that's is the case
with QM too. The very existence of the amplitude of probability wave
explains why there are relative probabilities.
Someone asked me why I take the lift instead of jumping out of the
window, but withstandrd QM and MWI, you get a high probability
injuring yourself by juming out of the window. The probailities are
unique thanks to a theorem by Gleason.

I have developed the many-dream interpretation of arithmetic, and in
arithmetic, before I knew about Everett QM. Everett QM.
The fact that physicists begin to at least contemplate the possibility
of the many-worlds, can be seen as a confirmation (not a proof!) of
mechanism.

>
> A religion or philosophy in which choice is of no material
> consequence is
> insane.

I totally agree with you.

> To encourage people to be "scientific" at the cost of sanity is
> evil.

It means that there is a mistake somewhere. But as I said Mechanism
prevents any reductionist theory of mind to work at all. All machine
looking inward enough know that their soul is not a machine, and they
can already defeat *any* theory claiming the contrary. They have a
vocation of universal dissident, somehow.

> Of course, in such a world (or set of worlds) it's okay to be evil,
> because that's just another empty choice. Thus we have the current
> presidency of the U.S.

You might be rather quick here.

Many world does not mean that all worlds have the same accessibility
relations, or the same local or global "density".

>
> We know consciousness more directly than physics.

Yes. We agree on this. With mechanism, physics is even, a
consciousness, first person plural, construction. It is not the
fundamental science, even if it staus the best tools for prediction,
and for testing theologies.

> We know the centrality of
> choosing to consciousness more surely than we know anything about
> maths.

We experience that, but we can also study some hypothesis, and
discover that their apparent reductionism was due to our ignorance.

>
> I realize I sound like Milton, when he wrote "And do not think of
> other
> worlds!" Perhaps I'm missing something big here. I hope so. What
> sort of
> ethics do you see as compatible with a many-worlds view?

Only bad faith fear reason and doubt,
Only bad reason fear faith.

In science, ethic is automatically detached from metaphysics, and even
theology, because in science we never claim anything to be true.

We can fear the human misunderstandings, and worst, the humans'
exploiting the human misunderstanding, and we should denounce them,
and resist them.

In fact the machine already explain to us, when we listen, that there
is no applicable ethical theories, but there are principles which can
prevent the misuse of ethical theories. The machine explains
(accepting some definition) that the ethical virtues can only be
taught by examplar behaviors, and lead to the contrary effects when
taught with words.

The many worlds is not unethical, we keep an important partial
control, and we are master of the quality of our lives, as long as we
are not enslaved by liars around us.
We can change the proportion of the worlds accessible in the many
worlds from our current world/dream.

I think that searching the truth is the best ethics, no matter which
theories we try and test, as long as we do not claim having found the
truth.

Best,

Bruno

>
>
> Whit

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170601131914.GA23416%40black.transpect.com
> .