Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

In biology there is a technical name for this phenomenon - Gene Expression. I know very little about the mechanism. Perhaps biologists themselves are in the process of learning about it. Sometime later, I will talk to a biologist on our campus about progress in this field. If you are interested, perhaps you can also do the same thing in a nearby campus . As for the second e-mail, as I mentioned before, the whole area of wave function collapse is controversial. One point is that, in principle, everything we see is quantum mechanical. There is no such thing as purely classical except as an approximation to quantum mechanical system. Then the problem is:  how can  one quantum system  participate in collapse of another quantum system? So people tried to bring in consciousness, as something outside materially quantum mechanical. What happened before sentient beings were around is also a thorny problem!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 3:50 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

By why do genes turn on or off in different species? For example, you have stated that difference in the presence of genes in chimpanzee and humans is less than 1% but the difference in their mental development, intelligence and behavior is astronomical. This could be explained due to the turning on or off the mechanism of genes. But why such turn on or off mechanism set in?

 

Consciousness also turns on or off or manifest differently  in different species due to the difference in their biological developments particularly the brain structures.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear KSRAO,

First, scientists have not agreed on the definition of consciousness! And before they can explain it “ in simple terms to non-scientists” they have to understand it themselves!! Of course, even how life arises from atoms is not clear. That is why there are all these endless debates.

By the way I have one argument in favor of possibility that atoms or particles  may have some rudimentary consciousness. Biologists now know that the difference in genes between chimpanzee and humans may be at the most one percent. But genes can be turned on or off. That is what makes us different. Similarly, perhaps consciousness can be turned on or off.  Of course I cannot prove that. Otherwise I will buy a ticket to Stockholm to collect my Nobel Prize!!

Best Regards,

Kashyap

 

 

 

[Joseph McCard]

Kashyap,

..just a couple of notes, observations, not criticisms:

>Kashyap wrote: ...consciousness can be turned on or off.  

What do you take consciousness to be such that that is the case? 

I understand consciousness, like a spotlight, can be shone in different directions. Is that what you meant?  But, since it is fundamental, it can never be destroyed or created. 

>Of course I cannot prove that.

I think it is pretty clear that no one can prove anything, in the absolute sense of "prove". The Truth just is. Is that how you see it? 

>First, scientists have not agreed on the definition of consciousness! 

If we defined consciousness, we would limit it I think. However, we can, and do, express it, and release it in many ways from within us. I have several verbal expressions for consciousness, but of course, they are from my perspective : ) How do you express and release your own consciousness, if I may ask? 

>And before they can explain it “ in simple terms to non-scientists” they have to understand it themselves!!

Consistent with my just previous comment, I believe consciousness can only be understood by experiencing it in as many ways as possible. Change the focus of your awareness, shine the spotlight in a different direction, for example. Where do you shine your light? : ) Learn by doing.

>Of course, even how life arises from atoms is not clear.

I see. You believe life arises from atoms. What do you base that conclusion on? As I see it, consciousness and life create atoms. Atoms do not create consciousness and life. If all this sounds absurd to you, I can only say that there is a model of Reality I follow, and it seems to be productive for me.

>In biology there is a technical name for this phenomenon - Gene Expression. I know very little about the mechanism. Perhaps biologists themselves are in the process of learning about it. Sometime later, I will talk to a biologist on our campus about progress in this field.

Obviously there is a technical scientific approach. But, there is also a magical approach. And so, you and I, believe what we are wont to believe. In line with my previous claim, just as atoms do not create life, atoms do not form genes, or express genes. Do you think that the possibility of creative change must always be present to insure our species "resiliency'"? There seem to be genetic cultures operating with infinite variety, the idiot and the genius, the stupid and the wise, the athletic, the deformed, the beautiful and the ugly, and all variations in between, each with their place and reason. They each fit into the overall picture of Nature. 

There is no way to predict with complete certainty the development of any genetic element. See, for example, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/sunday/crispr-upside-of-bad-genes.html, jun,18,2017, New York Times. We may "soon be able to edit off offending genes right out of their own sperm, eggs, or embryos, erasing it from the bloodline forever...But these genes probably helped us survive in the past, so is it wise to remove them now?"

Your thoughts, feelings, desires and intents, your reincarnational knowledge, modify the structures, bringing certain latent characteristics into actualization, minimizing others, as through the experience of your life you use your free will and constantly make new decisions.

...because, I believe understanding the nature of personal reality is critical, for you, and for me...Joseph

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

Not according to the current model of origin of universe. According to this model, our known universe arose from a very small patch of vacuum in which there was no matter, but there were quantum fields with very wild fluctuations, based on uncertainty principle. Then suddenly it expanded by a large exponential factor (the big bang) , something like a factor of 10^80 or so in 10^(-35) sec ! The fluctuation was frozen in because of rapid expansion. According to Guth, one of the fathers of inflation model, this resulted in an ultimate free lunch, a universe for which we may not have paid for in terms of energy budget !! Even if this model changes, the probabilistic structure and uncertainty principle have nothing to do with human observers. They are essential parts of quantum mechanics. QM will need a very drastic change, practically a new theory,  to make it a deterministic theory. The new theory will have to account for all the current successes of QM!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 8:56 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks.

 

But can we rule out the possibility that the universe in the primordial stage existed in some objective deterministic state and that all the quantum uncertainty and probability are the product of our subjective or objective measurement in the classical world? In other words, if no conscious observer or objective instruments stare at the particles in the quantum world ( implying nil measurement), there will no uncertainty, no probability, no superposition, no collapse required.

 

Vinod sehgal

[John Heininger]

TURKEY GIVES EVOLUTION THE BOOT!

About time! Cosmological and biological evolutionary "historical theories" are nothing but atheistic "philosophical"constructs that have no testable or verifiable empirical basis. Every breeder and horticulturist who has ever lived knows there are cross breeding and reproductive limits for every form of life in existence, without exception.Making the supposed evolutionary continuum impossible. No one in all of human history has ever observed the one form of life evolve into a different branch of life.Bacteria pull every trick in the book to “preserve”themselves as bacteria,and not change into something else.This true of all other forms of life.And is precisely why we have super-bugs that develop a resistance to antibiotics.In fact, the noted Harvard biologists the late Stephan J Gould openly acknowledged this established fact. And proposed his “punctuated equilibrium”theory to account for the “stasis” or stability of every form of live over time. This is why the geological strata are awash living fossils that still exist, and were suddenly buried. This flaky theory is precisely why the Nobel Committee does not regard cosmological and biological evolutionary “historical theories”about unobserved event in the distant past as “prize worthy” science, because there is no possible way of ever empirically substantiating that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether evolution happened at all.

The whole contrived evolutionary scenario operates on unverifiable assumptions, mere inferences, circular reasoning where interpretations conform to predictions .It's a surreal world where they conduct "science by explanations". And all these subjective opinion based "explanations" are given the same value as testable and verifiable empirical science. Revealing the extent to which science has truly gone mad.

Furthermore, both cosmological and biological evolutionary theories turn science on its head. Both of these theories operate on the absurd premise that an “effect” can not only be “far greater” than the cause, but actually “opposite to the cause”. For example, we have a cosmos that supposedly did not need God. And came from nothing out of nowhere. Life comes from non-life; consciousness comes from non-consciousness, intelligence from non-intelligence; reason from non-reason, and morals and altruism supposedly came from a undirected and unguided natural process that operates on the “survival of the fittest” and nature “red in tooth and claw”. Which is utter nonsense!

But wait, there is more! Darwin evolutionary theory does not fit reality in its foundational principle. Darwin stated that his whole naturalistic theory operated on the principle that NATURAL SELECTION ONLY PRESERVES THAT WHICH IS "USEFUL". So, why would "natural selection" largely preserve within the human genetics the inherent need for the vast majority of humanity to believe in God and other religious phenomena that supposedly don't exist. Why would natural selection preserve the widespread religious instincts if nothing exists beyond mere material matter and molecules in motion.

Little wonder Turkey has tossed evolution out on its ears. And no longer wants this contrived atheistic nonsense taught unchecked in schools.We should do likewise - and soon!

John Heininger Director AEAS 
http://thegodreality.org/conversations.html

--
----------------------------
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/0362e95c-7c47-4c49-9712-791d6e992467%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

John Heininger <heining...@gmail.com> on June 26, 2017 wrote:

>Bacteria pull every trick in the book to "preserve" themselves 

>as bacteria,and not change into something else. This true of all 

>other forms of life.

.

[S.P.] Indeed, every living organism, to stay alive, must be expediently evolved (evolutionized), and it is satisfied of what it is. I would much like to know your opinion concerning my various ideas I have expressed on this forum which pertain to evolutionary problematic (see attached three text files).

.

Thanks in advance for you reaction,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: John Heininger <heining...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

TURKEY GIVES EVOLUTION THE BOOT!

About time! Cosmological and biological evolutionary "historical theories" are nothing but atheistic "philosophical"constructs that have no testable or verifiable empirical basis. Every breeder and horticulturist who has ever lived knows there are cross breeding and reproductive limits for every form of life in existence, without exception.Making the supposed evolutionary continuum impossible. No one in all of human history has ever observed the one form of life evolve into a different branch of life.Bacteria pull every trick in the book to “preserve”themselves as bacteria,and not change into something else.This true of all other forms of life.And is precisely why we have super-bugs that develop a resistance to antibiotics.In fact, the noted Harvard biologists the late Stephan J Gould openly acknowledged this established fact. And proposed his “punctuated equilibrium”theory to account for the “stasis” or stability of every form of live over time. This is why the geological strata are awash living fossils that still exist, and were suddenly buried. This flaky theory is precisely why the Nobel Committee does not regard cosmological and biological evolutionary “historical theories”about unobserved event in the distant past as “prize worthy” science, because there is no possible way of ever empirically substantiating that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether evolution happened at all.

The whole contrived evolutionary scenario operates on unverifiable assumptions, mere inferences, circular reasoning where interpretations conform to predictions .It's a surreal world where they conduct "science by explanations". And all these subjective opinion based "explanations" are given the same value as testable and verifiable empirical science. Revealing the extent to which science has truly gone mad.

Furthermore, both cosmological and biological evolutionary theories turn science on its head. Both of these theories operate on the absurd premise that an “effect” can not only be “far greater” than the cause, but actually “opposite to the cause”. For example, we have a cosmos that supposedly did not need God. And came from nothing out of nowhere. Life comes from non-life; consciousness comes from non-consciousness, intelligence from non-intelligence; reason from non-reason, and morals and altruism supposedly came from a undirected and unguided natural process that operates on the “survival of the fittest” and nature “red in tooth and claw”. Which is utter nonsense!

But wait, there is more! Darwin evolutionary theory does not fit reality in its foundational principle. Darwin stated that his whole naturalistic theory operated on the principle that NATURAL SELECTION ONLY PRESERVES THAT WHICH IS "USEFUL". So, why would "natural selection" largely preserve within the human genetics the inherent need for the vast majority of humanity to believe in God and other religious phenomena that supposedly don't exist. Why would natural selection preserve the widespread religious instincts if nothing exists beyond mere material matter and molecules in motion.

Little wonder Turkey has tossed evolution out on its ears. And no longer wants this contrived atheistic nonsense taught unchecked in schools.We should do likewise - and soon!

John Heininger Director AEAS 
http://thegodreality.org/conversations.html

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

This model called “inflation” tops all models of modern physics in its weirdness! But it does explain lot of data coming from study of cosmic microwave background. These are (1) Flatness: Spatial curvature in the currently observable universe seems to be zero on the average. This is like the earth is round, but your street looks flat.(2) horizon problem: the universe looks same in all directions, including regions which did not have enough time to reach equilibrium, since the beginning of the universe.(3) people cannot find any magnetic monopoles, although every grand unified theory predicts abundance of them. In fact couple of years back the model was almost verified by data taken in a detector near south pole (BICEP). But there were lot of alternative explanations. So the interpretation is on hold, subject to newer more precise data. The Nobel prize for this model will have to wait. This model has lot of consensus, but not unanimous. In fact recently, the opposing group wrote an open  letter in scientific american magazine. Twenty seven believers , including some past Nobel Laureates, wrote a strong counter letter. Personally, the model looks all right to me. But who knows, what the new data will suggest? So stay tuned. There are quite a few articles on internet. You may want to read them when you have time.

About consciousness, science is as confused as ever! Just on this web site I see 5-6 different models! There are probably hundreds more outside.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 6:45 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

I can;t understand and comprehend how from a vacuum with almost vanishing energy density in the range of 6 protons/cubic. m, the universe could expand to 10^80 times in 10^(-35sec)? Such an astronomical rapid expansion demands an astronomical strong field. From where such an unimaginable strong field can manifest?

 

Vinod Sehgal

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

I just sent an e-mail. But I forgot to write something. Wild fluctuations come from the fact (uncertainty pr) that delta(t) and delta(x) are extremely small at the beginning of the universe. Our universe is supposed to have started in an extremely small patch of vacuum. Indeed, we have to postulate a very strong field, the so called Inflaton which is believed to be  responsible for this very rapid exponential expansion. These quantum fields were present in the original vacuum. The quantum field theory for this is on good ground.

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

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

Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 6:45 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

I can;t understand and comprehend how from a vacuum with almost vanishing energy density in the range of 6 protons/cubic. m, the universe could expand to 10^80 times in 10^(-35sec)? Such an astronomical rapid expansion demands an astronomical strong field. From where such an unimaginable strong field can manifest?

 

Vinod Sehgal

[Joseph McCard]

 "Not according to the current model of origin of universe. According to this model, our known universe arose from a very small patch of vacuum in which there was no matter, but there were quantum fields with very wild fluctuations, based on uncertainty principle. Then suddenly it expanded by a large exponential factor (the big bang) , something like a factor of 10^80 or so in 10^(-35) sec ! The fluctuation was frozen in because of rapid expansion. According to Guth, one of the fathers of inflation model, this resulted in an ultimate free lunch, a universe for which we may not have paid for in terms of energy budget !! Even if this model changes, the probabilistic structure and uncertainty principle have nothing to do with human observers. They are essential parts of quantum mechanics. QM will need a very drastic change, practically a new theory,  to make it a deterministic theory. The new theory will have to account for all the current successes of QM! Best Regards. Kashyap"

FWIW, there is a different story.

In the beginning there was a divine psychological gestalt -and by that I mean a being whose reality escapes the definition of the word "being", since it is the source from which all being emerges. That being exists in a psychological dimension, a spacious present, in which everything that was or will be is kept in immediate attention, poised in a divine context that is characterized by such a brilliant concentration that the grandest and lowliest, the largest and the smallest, are equally held in a multiloving constant focus.

Our conceptions of beginnings and endings makes an explanation of such a situation most difficult, for in your terms the beginning of the universe is meaningless -that is, in those terms there was no beginning

The universe is always coming into existence, and each present moment brings its own built-in past along with it. You agree on accepting as fact only a small portion of the large available data that compose any moment individually or globally. You accept only that data that fit in with your ideas of motion and time. As a result, your archeological evidence usually presents a picture quite in keeping with your ideas of history, geological eras, and so forth.

The conscious mind sees with a spectacular but limited scope. It lacks all peripheral vision. You allow the conscious mind to accept as evidence only those physical data available for the five senses -while the five senses represent only a relatively flat view of reality that deals with the most apparent surface.

When I speak of the dream world, I am not referring to some imaginary realm, but to the kind of world of ideas, of thoughts, of mental actions, out of which all form as you think of it emerges. Your physical reality is but one materialization of that inner organization. All possible civilizations exist first in the realm of the inner mind..

The universe is the natural extension of divine creativity and intent, lovingly formed from the inside out -so there was consciousness before there was matter, and not the other way round. 

In the beginning, then, there was a subjective world that became objective.

In the beginning, then, there was a dream world, in which consciousness formed a dream of physical reality, and gradually became awake in that world. 

The beginning of the universe is just a step outside the moment.

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Kashyap, 

I concur with your observation:

"About consciousness, science is as confused as ever! Just on this web site I see 5-6 different models! There are probably hundreds more outside.

Best Regards."

One possible method for selecting those theories of consciousness that are likely to be true may be to apply the principle of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation).  Baed on ITR, it is possible to divided consciousness theories into two classes -- dyadic and triadic, as shown in Figure 1, and it is the triadic theories that are most likely to be true:

                     f                                               g

    Reality  ----->  Lived Consciousness -----> Theorized Consciousness

         |                                                                                       ^
         |                                                                                        |
         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |____________________________________________|

                                                    h

Figure 1.  The relation between lived consiousness and theories of consciousness.

 f = natural process; g = theorizing; h = grounding/information flow.  This diagram is thought to be equivlalent to the commutative triangle of category theory, so that f x g = h, or "f followed by g leads to the same result as h". 

Based on this diagram, I would suggest that, although theoreticians can conjure up their favorite metatheories of consciouosness consistent with their knowledge and beliefs, not all such metatheories may turn out to be be true or grounded in reality.   In other words, there may be two kinds of metatheories -- one satisfying Steps f and g and the other satisfying Steps f, g and h.  The former may be referred to as dyadic metatheories and the latter as triadic metatheories.  I think it is very likely that only triadic theories of consciusness as defined in Figure 1 are true.

With all the best.

Sung

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

This model called “inflation” tops all models of modern physics in its weirdness! But it does explain lot of data coming from study of cosmic microwave background. These are (1) Flatness: Spatial curvature in the currently observable universe seems to be zero on the average. This is like the earth is round, but your street looks flat.(2) horizon problem: the universe looks same in all directions, including regions which did not have enough time to reach equilibrium, since the beginning of the universe.(3) people cannot find any magnetic monopoles, although every grand unified theory predicts abundance of them. In fact couple of years back the model was almost verified by data taken in a detector near south pole (BICEP). But there were lot of alternative explanations. So the interpretation is on hold, subject to newer more precise data. The Nobel prize for this model will have to wait. This model has lot of consensus, but not unanimous. In fact recently, the opposing group wrote an open  letter in scientific american magazine. Twenty seven believers , including some past Nobel Laureates, wrote a strong counter letter. Personally, the model looks all right to me. But who knows, what the new data will suggest? So stay tuned. There are quite a few articles on internet. You may want to read them when you have time.

--

----------------------------
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/936a39bbcdd64ebb8e76f83b2e4c50cc%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

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

--

Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833

www.conformon.net

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on June 28, 2017 wrote:

>FWIW, there is a different story.

>...

>In the beginning, then, there was a subjective world that became objective.

.

[S.P.] An interesting story, and, what is particularly remarkable, -- entertaining. :-) The key phrase here is "FWIW", which means "for what it's worth", or "unverified reports suggest that", or "the rumors are that". 

.

In fact, in the beginning, there was nothing. Nothing means NOTHING. Why nothing? Because it was the beginning. There was no consciousness, no subjective world, no desire to become objective world, no dream world, no divine creativity and intent, no world of ideas, no mental actions, no inner mind, no history, no time, no events, no actions, no space -- nothing!  Nothing yet.

.

There was no consciousness-possessing observer who could witness anything. Therefore, this story is unverifiable in principle, and that is why it is labeled as FWIW by its author. 

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: vinodse...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Joseph McCard]

Sung,

I find your test intriguing. Would you be so kind as to  provide an example of a dyadic theory and a triadic theory, and then run them through your diagram? 

for example, would I be correct to infer that natural processes [f] are measurable, physical, bio-chemical?

Theorizing [g] involves scientific/ philosophical rationality following experience, as opposed to say magical thinking?

Grounding/ information flow[h] is theory applied to physical reality, a kind of feedback? 

Hence, true [g] and grounded [h]? g & h

"You wrote: 

                  f                                               g

    Reality  ----->  Lived Consciousness -----> Theorized Consciousness

         |                                                                                       ^

         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |____________________________________________|

                                                    h

Figure 1.  The relation between lived consiousness and theories of consciousness.

 f = natural process; g = theorizing; h = grounding/information flow.  This diagram is thought to be equivlalent to the commutative triangle of category theory, so that f x g = h, or "f followed by g leads to the same result as h". 

Based on this diagram, I would suggest that, although theoreticians can conjure up their favorite metatheories of consciouosness consistent with their knowledge and beliefs, not all such metatheories may turn out to be be true or grounded in reality.   In other words, there may be two kinds of metatheories -- one satisfying Steps f and g and the other satisfying Steps f, g and h.  The former may be referred to as dyadic metatheories and the latter as triadic metatheories.  I think it is very likely that only triadic theories of consciusness as defined in Figure 1 are true."

Joseph

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:37:37PM +0000, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

> In fact, in the beginning, there was nothing. Nothing means NOTHING.

Hi Serge,

In the spirit of this correction: In the beginning there was no time. So
since beginnings and endings are relative to time, there was no beginning.
And no ending.

Now, once we had time, and a beginning, in the time of that beginning we had
something. Except I shouldn't have said "once," as that's sneaking time in,
as it were, ahead of its time.

In any case, maybe instead of "in the beginning, there was nothing," you
might want to say "before the beginning, there was nothing"? Except "before"
puts time where it's not, again. This may be squarely in the "of that which
we cannot speak" catagory.

Either that, or we need to be comfortable with even our best models having
contradictions.

Best,
Whit

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> on June 29, 2017 wrote:

>Now, once we had time, and a beginning, in the time of that 

>beginning we had something.

.

[S.P.] The phrase "once we had time, and a beginning" is incorrect. Here, the word "and" is impertinent -- "time" and "beginning" could not be simultaneously, because, by definition, in the beginning there was nothing, time including.

.

The phrase "in the time of that beginning" is incorrect as well, since in the beginning there was no time.

.

[Whit Blauvelt] wrote:

> In any case, maybe instead of "in the beginning, there was nothing," 

>you might want to say "before the beginning, there was nothing"?

.

[S.P.] Here, I just used the original Joseph's formulation, namely, "in the beginning". So, in fact, it is not my expression. 

.

However, "before the beginning" there was nothing as well, and I quite assume that the state (of existence outside of time) when there was nothing could last for the whole eternity. Anything has appeared right after "beginning".

.

Thanks for your reply,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:57 AM

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

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

'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> Jun 28 at 11:42 PM

To

Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Message body

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Joseph,

Thanks for our interest.

I think you got the essence of the diagram, or the meaning of the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation), which can be viewed as the principle of communication, language, and the category theory.

Any system of thoughts embodying Steps f and g is what I came to call dyadic theory. For example, mathematics that is valid independent of empirical support, and some philosophical systems developed by scholars which are logicaly valid (i.e., g) but not empirically grounded (i.e., not h).

Any system of thoughts emobodying Steps f, g, and h is what I define as triadic theory.  The best example for me is the sign theory (semiotics) of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).  But I have encountered some semitoic scholars whose sign theories are dyadic, since their theoreis are groundless and hence artificial.

I would like to know what you think of these examples.  

With all the best.

Sung

--
----------------------------
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/1db50483-c327-4445-ac94-5c3931d76470%40googlegroups.com.

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

[Eric Reyes]

Serge, you write ~

”In fact, in the beginning, there was nothing. Nothing means NOTHING. Why nothing? Because it was the beginning. There was no consciousness, no subjective world, no desire to become objective world, no dream world, no divine creativity and intent, no world of ideas, no mental actions, no inner mind, no history, no time, no events, no actions, no space -- nothing!"

My question is, do you actually believe this? You also say "There was no consciousness-possessing observer who could witness anything."

Do you really think that reality starts or originates from "nothing"? How is that possible? I think the exact opposite is true, for what is absolute or whole there is no beginning. If something exists it has always existed. We who are small and limited want to project limitations on the whole, but that's not reality. We ultimately cannot force reality into a little box to contain it, to control it. That's impossible. Reality has its own existence, it's own ideas.

Regards, Eric Reyes

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--
----------------------------
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/1815383657.705870.1498675057814%40mail.yahoo.com.

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Serge and Whit,

If there was absolutely nothing before the beginning of our universe,  then what caused it to begin?

Whilst I agree that the objective time dimension of our current universe began at the Big Bang,  I think we have no physical grounds to assume that there was no subjective time (i. e. Conscious experience) before that event - in fact my theory suggests there was (assuming that the universe began with a vacuum fluctuation as modern physics suggests). I rather like the theory suggested by a Jewish guy called John sometime in the late first century AD that 'In the Beginning was the information,  and the information was with the consciousness, and the information was the consciousness. It was with the consciousness in the beginning.  Through that information all things were made... '. In other words, all the power and knowledge and motivation to create our universe in a humane way with the properties needed to evolve living creatures (though not I think the knowledge of how to create them) were within the experience of a consciousness at the beginning of objective time.

I think that view avoids the logical impossibility of something coming from absolutely nothing.

Best wishes,
Colin

C.  S.  Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

Send from Huawei Y360

--

----------------------------
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/1884587326.973223.1498698109378%40mail.yahoo.com.

[BMP]

Dear Colin and friends,

Namaste. You give an interesting interpretation of John 1.1. You replace the Logos (Word) with information and God with consciousness (Concept, Idea).   Hegel identifies the Logos as the Idea of God in and for God's self with God's own reality as God. Thus God is absolute, i.e. that whose Idea and Reality are congruent. 

This may be difficult to understand if you are not familiar with Hegel, but the main point is to undestand if there is an incongruity between information [a nebulous term for me] and consciousness [which signifies concept or idea]. If we interpret 'information' as determination or thought [which is what 'Word' also implies] and consciousness as the reality of God then we seem to recover the original interpretation that Hegel gives. Of course, consciousness is not the reality of God, or at least not the whole reality of God. The abstract monists would like to identify God as consciousness, but in my humble opinion that is not the complete idea of the Absolute given by Veda as the tri-unity of sat cit ananda, in which consciousness [cit] is a part of the Complete Whole.

The next thing is that there is a difference between the ideas of Nothing and Beginning. Nothing as Serge said is Nothing. But Beginning implies  something more that mere Nothing. The word 'beginning' implies that there is something to follow. This is not true of the word 'nothing.' When we say 'beginning' we refer to the start of something that already exists and inquire about its origination. In this way Beginning already has implicit within it the presently existing world or anything else we are inquiring about its origin. This implicitness of the concept of Beginning may be called the Nothing of what is presently existing, but it is certainly distinct from pure Nothing which doesn't have anything implicit, including the concept of Beginning, within it. 

The implicit totality of present existence that the concept of Beginning contains within itself, i.e. its teleology, is ignored by abstract analytical thinking which sees only the Nothing of the present existence in the Beginning. Because such thinking ignores the implicit totality of the present existence, which we may call the unmanifested Idea, it has to come up with some way this Nothing can come to manifest the totality of present existence. It does this by proposing a contingent disturbance of a vacuum state and an explosion - something that happens spontaneously without cause , i.e. contingently. The idea here is to avoid teleology, a guiding principle or a final cause or purpose. But we may now understand that the very concept of Beginning implies that the presently existing totality is always and already necessarily there [as negated, as the Nothing of its present existence] within what we refer to as its beginning. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

---

From: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:18 AM

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Joseph McCard]

Colin,

"If there was absolutely nothing before the beginning of our universe,  then what caused it to begin?"

A reasonable question, one that suggests there was consciousness before our universe. 

"Whilst I agree that the objective time dimension of our current universe began at the Big Bang,  I think we have no physical grounds to assume that there was no subjective time (i. e. Conscious experience) before that event - in fact my theory suggests there was (assuming that the universe began with a vacuum fluctuation as modern physics suggests). I rather like the theory suggested by a Jewish guy called John sometime in the late first century AD that 'In the Beginning was the information,  and the information was with the consciousness, and the information was the consciousness. It was with the consciousness in the beginning.  Through that information all things were made... '. In other words, all the power and knowledge and motivation to create our universe in a humane way with the properties needed to evolve living creatures (though not I think the knowledge of how to create them) were within the experience of a consciousness at the beginning of objective time.

I have never heard of that one before, and I have heard a lot, so thank you for that quotation. It sounds consistent with my beliefs. "Information was the consciousness", very perceptive, as I see it. 

"I think that view avoids the logical impossibility of something coming from absolutely nothing."

There is an interesting argument that claims something coming from nothing:

"In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself—because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is… was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not. The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. 

 

This energy—this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy—chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.

 It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.

 And so All That Is divided Itself—becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.

 Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist.

 It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts."

Joseph

[Bruno Marchal]

That is what we get if we take seriously the digital mechanist assumption in the cognitive science. 

In that case, it is a theorem of elementary arithmetic that the sigma_1 arithmetical reality emulates a web of dreams, and the physical reality is a 1p plural sharable part which emerge on the frontier between the computable and the non-computable in arithmetic. Notice that since Gödel and Others we know today that the computable is only a tiny part of the arithmetical truth, and even more so when seen from inside. Arithmetic seen from inside (1p, 1pp) needs to assume much more than (3p) arithmetic!

Bruno

--
----------------------------
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/abb6bbc2-aacf-4aa7-a1e7-55fa88b9eacf%40googlegroups.com.

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

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

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

You have some interesting questions in the last two e-mails which are at the forefront of current cosmology research with lot of controversy and uncertainty in the models. I will try to answer some of these with this disclaimer. I have never worked in cosmology! At my age (will be 80 in July) I have hard time keeping up with the rapid development in the field anyway! Also, the usual caveat: one cannot really talk about modern physics without equations. But here is my impression. Currently cosmology is suffering from lack of precise experiments which would distinguish between various models, although people are trying with experiments at south-pole and in satellites.  Microwave Cosmic Background observed today came from what presumably happened some 300,000 years after the big bang. Earlier than that it is all theory. It is believed that first four nuclei, H, He, Li and Be were formed during the first three minutes and we can calculate the relative number. Astronomers can estimate how many of these were formed as primordial nuclei and how many were formed in stars later. This field called nucleosynthesis is fairly reliable and there is good agreement between theory and experiment. What happened in the first minute is all speculation, based on current knowledge of high energy physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. At some point the four interactions separated from the grand unified interaction, particles like protons, neutrons, electrons etc. were created from available energy and later nuclei were formed. Because of the rapid expansion, energy lowered. We know that weak and electromagnetic forces unify above about 246 GeV and separate below this energy. At some moment Higgs field was created. But all of this is model dependent with hardly any direct experimental confirmation. Hopefully, study of gravitational waves will throw some light on what happened in the first minute and the big bang. Also big bang wiped out evidence of what was before. Probably space-time were created at that point or it was a bounce from a previous big crunch .There are a number of cyclic models which cannot be ruled out. How entropy was reduced to minimum during the big crunch for the next cycle is a big mystery. Steinhardt is a big opponent of inflation model. You may want to look up his work.

Now let me tell you about my understanding of the present status of our knowledge of what happened in first minute.  There was a very strong energetic field or several fields called inflaton(s). Status of energy conservation on a global scale is not clear in General Relativity. You might ask where is the energy for space expansion coming from?  Global energy conservation in GR does not follow from Gauss’s theorem because you have to integrate curvature tensors. That is why Guth remarked that we had an ultimate free lunch! There is one argument though. When matter is produced it has gravitational potential energy with a negative sign. This cancels the mass-energy of the created particles. So it may be true that the present total energy of the universe is zero which would be consistent with its origin from vacuum. In that sense we may have paid back for the free lunch! Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, something did not come out of nothing!! But where do these fields come from? God knows!!

Yes. Theoretically, there is a strong possibility of multiverses. But nobody knows how to find them.

As for deterministic theories, I am skeptical. Indeterministic QM has done so well that any replacement will have to reproduce all successes which may be hard. I have not seen any big movement following ‘t Hooft. He already had a Nobel prize. So probably he can afford to take a risk of being called senile by fellow physicists! By the way. I have not studied his papers, but we Hindus should be happy with super determination! That sounds like Karma or destiny!

Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. Only thing physicists can do is to make mathematical models and see if they are consistent with experiments. Speculations on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 10:24 PM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

There are some unresolved issues in this model which don't seem to have solutions.

I) Energy of vacuum is almost zero, therefore, from where a very very strong inflation field will emerge?

Ii) Quantum fluctuations being wild and random implying stochastic one. How universe will transit from stochastic  to deterministic one?

Iii) if universe starts from one patch of vacuum, is is a natural corollary  that some more universes might have started  from other parts of the vacuum also leading to multiverses ( not from single fluctuation) but from different fluctuations  from different patches.

Iv) if any entity has any existence, it means it should have some ontology. Nil ontology implies zero existence. If vacuum has some existence, it should have some ontology not to be equated with wild fluctuations. Fluctuations being wild and discrete should require some background  holistic medium for their existence and operation.

V) Heisenberg  uncertainty principle relates delta E and delta T with Planck constant h but within the existing variables. It does not speaks  of creation of energy out of nothing  even if E and T are related thru h.

Otherwise, manifestation of something  from nothing is illogical since nothing means non-existence of anything  it us from this prospective also if vacuum has existence, it should be full of some ontology at each of its point. On the contrary, I should say that vacuum bring a true holistic background medium for discrete fluctuations and low energy density field, should be indivisible to any point. An infinite  indivisible ontology and infinite vacuum, serving as background  to fluctuations, can be treated as synonymous.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Eric Reyes <eka...@yahoo.com> on June 29, 2017 wrote:

>My question is, do you actually believe this? ...

>Do you really think that reality starts or originates from "nothing"?

.

[S.P.] OK, let me clarify the issue. My reply to Joseph McCard is HUMOROUS. Why humorous? Because the author of the story started it with the phrase "FWIW" which means: "as one old lady said in the market". So, I have pointed out at clear contradictions in his story. Namely, if he uses the phrase "in the beginning", then he couldn't simultaneously assert that there were "subjective world", "world of dreams", "conscious mind", and so on. Please, re-read my post from this angle. See also my reply to Whit Blauvelt.

.

[Eric Reyes] wrote:

>I think the exact opposite is true, for what is absolute or whole 

>there is no beginning. If something exists it has always existed.

.

[S.P.] What I believe is that Noumenal Reality had no beginning and will have no ending. By "Noumenal Reality" I mean the one which is postulated to exist objectively and independently of what we think about it. However, every living organism has its own version of Phenomenal Reality as a sum of experience (knowledge, information, etc.) about Noumenal Reality, and this sum of experience the organism acquires due to activity of own consciousness in the course of its life. So, the given organism's version of Phenomenal Reality begins right after the moment of insemination, and ends when the organism dies -- it has its beginning and ending.

.

Second. I like your talking about Reality as a whole. I have even formulated what I call the General Law of Simultaneity, which holds that for (Noumenal) Reality to exist as a single whole, all the events and processes that belong to it, if they do take place, they must necessarily take place simultaneously, and this fact does not depend on a physical frame of reference we choose within our Reality, nor on a distance between these events and processes. (For details, see my reply to Jonathan Edwards on May 30, 2017).

.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'Eric Reyes' 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>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:02 PM

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Kashyap Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

>Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in

> the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, 

>something did not come out of nothing!!

.

[S.P.] For anything to exist, there must be a concrete place, or a volume of space, where it exists. In the beginning there was no space, no vacuum, therefore nothing could be said to exist in the beginning. However, if we start from presuming the existence of "quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations", then it is the same as to assert that a tree has evolved from a seed -- an enough trivial statement.  

.

[Kashyap Vasavada] wrote:

> Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. ... Speculations

> on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

.

[S.P.] Then the "Big-Bang theory" and "Multiverse theory" should be treated as philosophic theories which bear no relation to Physics. I agree. I would also add that Physics should also stop trying to account for consciousness, since it is not its subject matter -- it is a subject matter for the Science of Consciousness as a new scientific discipline.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:16 AM
Subject: RE: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Dear Vinod,

You have some interesting questions in the last two e-mails which are at the forefront of current cosmology research with lot of controversy and uncertainty in the models. I will try to answer some of these with this disclaimer. I have never worked in cosmology! At my age (will be 80 in July) I have hard time keeping up with the rapid development in the field anyway! Also, the usual caveat: one cannot really talk about modern physics without equations. But here is my impression. Currently cosmology is suffering from lack of precise experiments which would distinguish between various models, although people are trying with experiments at south-pole and in satellites.  Microwave Cosmic Background observed today came from what presumably happened some 300,000 years after the big bang. Earlier than that it is all theory. It is believed that first four nuclei, H, He, Li and Be were formed during the first three minutes and we can calculate the relative number. Astronomers can estimate how many of these were formed as primordial nuclei and how many were formed in stars later. This field called nucleosynthesis is fairly reliable and there is good agreement between theory and experiment. What happened in the first minute is all speculation, based on current knowledge of high energy physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. At some point the four interactions separated from the grand unified interaction, particles like protons, neutrons, electrons etc. were created from available energy and later nuclei were formed. Because of the rapid expansion, energy lowered. We know that weak and electromagnetic forces unify above about 246 GeV and separate below this energy. At some moment Higgs field was created. But all of this is model dependent with hardly any direct experimental confirmation. Hopefully, study of gravitational waves will throw some light on what happened in the first minute and the big bang. Also big bang wiped out evidence of what was before. Probably space-time were created at that point or it was a bounce from a previous big crunch .There are a number of cyclic models which cannot be ruled out. How entropy was reduced to minimum during the big crunch for the next cycle is a big mystery. Steinhardt is a big opponent of inflation model. You may want to look up his work.

Now let me tell you about my understanding of the present status of our knowledge of what happened in first minute.  There was a very strong energetic field or several fields called inflaton(s). Status of energy conservation on a global scale is not clear in General Relativity. You might ask where is the energy for space expansion coming from?  Global energy conservation in GR does not follow from Gauss’s theorem because you have to integrate curvature tensors. That is why Guth remarked that we had an ultimate free lunch! There is one argument though. When matter is produced it has gravitational potential energy with a negative sign. This cancels the mass-energy of the created particles. So it may be true that the present total energy of the universe is zero which would be consistent with its origin from vacuum. In that sense we may have paid back for the free lunch! Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, something did not come out of nothing!! But where do these fields come from? God knows!!

Yes. Theoretically, there is a strong possibility of multiverses. But nobody knows how to find them.

As for deterministic theories, I am skeptical. Indeterministic QM has done so well that any replacement will have to reproduce all successes which may be hard. I have not seen any big movement following ‘t Hooft. He already had a Nobel prize. So probably he can afford to take a risk of being called senile by fellow physicists! By the way. I have not studied his papers, but we Hindus should be happy with super determination! That sounds like Karma or destiny!

Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. Only thing physicists can do is to make mathematical models and see if they are consistent with experiments. Speculations on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Serge -- You are having problems with colloquial English: "For what it's worth" does NOT mean what you think it does. It means, "I believe this is true, but you have to decide for yourself how important it is to you." [Of course, if FWIW is prefaced by something like "it is rumored that..." then it can take on a different meaning, namely "It's a rumor, and you have to decide for yourself whether to take the rumor seriously."]

And so, I fully agree that if the whole of reality was NOTHING in some sense of the word, it means that there was no conscious mind, etc. No Brahman. No Atman.  NOTHING. Just how our world, our existence, our consciousness can be reconciled with this -- that is YOUR problem, not mine, and I don't think it is Reyes's problem either.

Peter Nyikos

Professor of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:04 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SPAM]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

--

----------------------------
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/1094253606.1918588.1498788295568%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Serge--

I fully agree with your first paragraph.

But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind. That philosophy reaches back at least as far as the Chandogya Upanishad, but most Western professors of philosophy -- not all of whom deserve the title "Philosopher" by any means -- seem to think that it was all obscurity before Descartes began to meditate on it. Of course, almost all Western professors of philosophy who write books (Daniel Dennett is a good example) think they have gone far past Descartes, in the direction OPPOSITE Hindu philosopy!

And so, while agree with everything in your second paragraph before the dash that begins your last sentence, I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual consciousness. Some Hindus on this list might claim that my perception of my individual consciousness is an illusion. However, they need to account for that alleged illusion in a way similar to the way our ordinary everyday illusions (a blue dome above our heads on a cloudless day, a rainbow as something that has a definable end, etc.) are accounted for.

I must admit I haven't been following more than a small percentage of emails that emanate from Sadhu Sanga, so I may have missed such an account. If so, I would appreciate being made aware of one.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

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

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:59 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

-

Kashyap Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

>Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in

> the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, 

>something did not come out of nothing!!

.

[S.P.] For anything to exist, there must be a concrete place, or a volume of space, where it exists. In the beginning there was no space, no vacuum, therefore nothing could be said to exist in the beginning. However, if we start from presuming the existence of "quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations", then it is the same as to assert that a tree has evolved from a seed -- an enough trivial statement.  

.

[Kashyap Vasavada] wrote:

> Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. ... Speculations

> on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

.

[S.P.] Then the "Big-Bang theory" and "Multiverse theory" should be treated as philosophic theories which bear no relation to Physics. I agree. I would also add that Physics should also stop trying to account for consciousness, since it is not its subject matter -- it is a subject matter for the Science of Consciousness as a new scientific discipline.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:16 AM
Subject: RE: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Dear Vinod,

You have some interesting questions in the last two e-mails which are at the forefront of current cosmology research with lot of controversy and uncertainty in the models. I will try to answer some of these with this disclaimer. I have never worked in cosmology! At my age (will be 80 in July) I have hard time keeping up with the rapid development in the field anyway! Also, the usual caveat: one cannot really talk about modern physics without equations. But here is my impression. Currently cosmology is suffering from lack of precise experiments which would distinguish between various models, although people are trying with experiments at south-pole and in satellites.  Microwave Cosmic Background observed today came from what presumably happened some 300,000 years after the big bang. Earlier than that it is all theory. It is believed that first four nuclei, H, He, Li and Be were formed during the first three minutes and we can calculate the relative number. Astronomers can estimate how many of these were formed as primordial nuclei and how many were formed in stars later. This field called nucleosynthesis is fairly reliable and there is good agreement between theory and experiment. What happened in the first minute is all speculation, based on current knowledge of high energy physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. At some point the four interactions separated from the grand unified interaction, particles like protons, neutrons, electrons etc. were created from available energy and later nuclei were formed. Because of the rapid expansion, energy lowered. We know that weak and electromagnetic forces unify above about 246 GeV and separate below this energy. At some moment Higgs field was created. But all of this is model dependent with hardly any direct experimental confirmation. Hopefully, study of gravitational waves will throw some light on what happened in the first minute and the big bang. Also big bang wiped out evidence of what was before. Probably space-time were created at that point or it was a bounce from a previous big crunch .There are a number of cyclic models which cannot be ruled out. How entropy was reduced to minimum during the big crunch for the next cycle is a big mystery. Steinhardt is a big opponent of inflation model. You may want to look up his work.

Now let me tell you about my understanding of the present status of our knowledge of what happened in first minute.  There was a very strong energetic field or several fields called inflaton(s). Status of energy conservation on a global scale is not clear in General Relativity. You might ask where is the energy for space expansion coming from?  Global energy conservation in GR does not follow from Gauss’s theorem because you have to integrate curvature tensors. That is why Guth remarked that we had an ultimate free lunch! There is one argument though. When matter is produced it has gravitational potential energy with a negative sign. This cancels the mass-energy of the created particles. So it may be true that the present total energy of the universe is zero which would be consistent with its origin from vacuum. In that sense we may have paid back for the free lunch! Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, something did not come out of nothing!! But where do these fields come from? God knows!!

Yes. Theoretically, there is a strong possibility of multiverses. But nobody knows how to find them.

As for deterministic theories, I am skeptical. Indeterministic QM has done so well that any replacement will have to reproduce all successes which may be hard. I have not seen any big movement following ‘t Hooft. He already had a Nobel prize. So probably he can afford to take a risk of being called senile by fellow physicists! By the way. I have not studied his papers, but we Hindus should be happy with super determination! That sounds like Karma or destiny!

Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. Only thing physicists can do is to make mathematical models and see if they are consistent with experiments. Speculations on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

Best Regards.

kashyap