Vichāraka-5 expresses appreciation for the scholarly exposition on Vedic thought and notes the value of learning from both Siddhāntin and Pūrvapakṣin-1. He reflects that while quantum theory provides a useful contemporary language, it is merely one of many symbolic systems. Quantum language offers tools for measurement (metrology), but questions remain: who or what defines the laws? Especially the meta-laws or recursive principles that appear to govern other laws—could these foundational structures be seen as our gods? Hal invites deeper contemplation on whether the recursive nature of law-formation itself is divine, and how alternative languages might reveal other layers of cosmic truth.
Thank you for your gracious words and for elevating the conversation with your profound questions. Your reflections on quantum language, metrology, and recursive law-making resonate deeply with the aims of the DPV~ICRDAM framework, which seeks to unify metaphysical insight with empirical science.
Your central question—“How do recursive law-making laws become our gods?”—touches the very core of our inquiry into the relationship between NB (Nirguṇa Brahman) and SB (Saguṇa Brahman).
In the DPV~ICRDAM framework, recursive law-making is not merely a feature of natural science but a manifestation of Saguṇa Brahman (SB), which manifests from the neutral, unmanifest source, NB. Here’s how the synthesis unfolds:
The "law-making laws"—meta-laws such as symmetry principles, conservation rules, or scaling behavior—are understood within DPV~ICRDAM as dynamical patterns within SB, the manifested realm. These are not arbitrary, but emerge reflectively and inseparably from the primordial neutrality of NB. This process mirrors how complexity arises from symmetry-breaking in physics.
NB, by contrast, is not governed by any specific law—it is neutral and beyond all law-bound descriptions, just as it is beyond being labeled conscious or non-conscious. In this way, NB aligns with the neti-neti (not this, not that) method. Yet, it contains the potentiality for all lawful patterns, including recursive and self-generating laws. So while NB is not itself a “law,” it is the ground from which all lawfulness reflects forth in SB.
Your question about gods finds its place here: In DPV~ICRDAM, deities are archetypal embodiments of cosmic principles—they do not "create" laws from outside the system, but represent the structured reflections of NB within SB. For example, Brahmā represents creation (structure), Viṣṇu sustains order (scaling equilibrium), and Śiva dissolves (entropy and transformation). These patterns mirror meta-laws like emergence, homeostasis, and recursive renewal.
Finally, as you rightly point out, quantum language is just one expression. DPV~ICRDAM respects Vedic metalogic as a richer, more layered semiotic system that allows for the coexistence of paradox, the interplay of subtle and gross, and the recognition of multi-perspectival reality. Where quantum logic speaks in probabilities, Vedic logic speaks in layers of reality (avasthā) and interpenetrating truths (satya-anṛta).
Thus, in DPV~ICRDAM, recursive law-formation is not separate from divinity—it is the dynamic play (līlā) of SB reflecting the infinite potential of NB. Our gods, then, are not external legislators, but reflections of lawful emergence encoded into the very structure of manifested dual-aspect reality.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.