Forum Replies Created
Quantum theory has a property where the total wavefunction can be divided into many equivalent ‘bases’. These are sometimes called eigenfunction bases. Each eigenfunction represents a quantum object. In molecular chemistry there are standard procedures that carry out ‘hybridization’ of orbitals which means they ‘mix’ the pure eigenfunctions, owing to which we talk about ‘molecular eigenfunctions’ which are states of quantum objects taking the whole molecule into account, rather than just the atoms into account. As you add more particles, the nature of quantum theory is that there is potential to divide this wavefunction into many orthogonal bases. The universe as a whole is a single wavefunction and it can also be divided into many orthogonal bases.
Temptations are produced from the unconscious, which has many parts beginning with chitta. They manifest as sudden ideas, which are then liked or disliked, which then become our decisions based on moral notions. However, many times these likes overwhelm morality, which is when we call them ‘temptations’. Sigmund Freud identified an ongoing tussle between the Id which is the repository of desires and the Super-Ego which tempers these desires. the Ego is supposed to mediate between these three things by finding a path in which the desire can be fulfilled without violating the moral injunctions. A temptation wins when the Id dominates over the Super-Ego, the Ego tries its level best to find a path to satisfy the desire without being immoral, but the Ego may lose out to the Id and commit some immoral actions. It’s a three-way dynamic in which one of the trees can dominate and the other two become subordinate.
There are three descriptions of space–(1) a tree, (2) lotus petals, and (3) spherical. These appear to be confusing normally but you can think in terms of the circle limit diagrams. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoincareHyperbolicDisk.html
The center of the circle is the root and the triangles are the branches. You can also think in terms of a lotus flower. Also, because the triangles toward the circumference become smaller, you can never reach the circumference, and this is an analog of Zeno’s paradox.
In terms of numbers, if the center is visualized as 1, and the successive emanating leaves as fractions of 1, then the fractions get smaller and smaller, and they are all parts of the center, and yet different from the center, and there is potentially no limit to dividing, and yet no matter how many times you divide, you never actually finish dividing. So, there is a “circle limit”, which means that space is infinite, and yet there is a boundary to this infinity that cannot be crossed.
Then again you can view this picture as the flattened projection of a sphere, in which the center is the north pole and the circumference is the south pole. The exception is that if you begin from the north pole, you can never reach the south pole, but you can get closer and closer to it.
If you draw this kind of geometry with colors, then the north pole will be white, and the south pole will be black. That type of drawing is called a “color sphere”. White is the full color and black is lacks color, but you can never get pure black because it could never be seen.
So this kind of picture is useful in visualizing the tree with closed spaces which then spawn more closed spaces. And even though you can imagine infinite divisibility you can never reach that infinite division. This applies both to space and time. This kind of space is hyperbolic but if you insist that equal distance is traveled in equal time, then the same thing becomes a sphere. In other words, if you presume that the world is uniform the tree becomes a sphere.
This is the approximate sketch, but it needs formal mathematics (for semantics) in which we are able to represent the branches as parts of the whole and yet separate from the whole. I still don’t understand it well enough but if I do someday I may be able to write that geometry.
There are many problems of prediction in chemistry but the basic issue is that chemicals do not always produce a reaction. The “yield” of chemical experiments varies based on temperature, pressure, and sometimes the yield is so low that we have to add catalysts to improve the yield. So one can ask: if two chemicals are present why don’t they always react? Also, can one say which molecules will react to produce a chemical reaction? The short answer is that we cannot predict which molecules will react. We can say on aggregate that some molecules will react, and if we want more of them to react then we will have to find the conditions (such as a higher or lower temperature and pressure) or even inject catalysts to improve the rate of reaction.
So the reactants are the possibility of a chemical reaction but not the reality of a reaction. The conversion of possibility into a reality requires many additional factors, and generally, no condition guarantees a 100% reaction completion. Therefore, one large part of modern chemistry is how to improve the “yield” of reactions by improving the probability of a reaction.
Within the human body chemicals don’t automatically react, but need catalysts which are called enzymes. Many of the proteins transcribed from the DNA are enzymes and they catalyze the reactions. Therefore, simply by controlling the rate of enzyme production one can change the rate of the chemical reaction. The enzyme production is controlled by the hormones and these hormones are controlled by a variety of other things including mental/emotional states. The DNA transcription is also controlled by epigenetic factors which are changed by the environment.
So, at a very low level, it appears that chemistry is deterministic if we assume that the reaction involves some chemical reactants. But if you look at a slightly bigger picture, then you need enzymes. Looking at a slightly bigger picture, these enzymes are controlled by the production of hormones in the body which change with the mental state. And the production of these hormones is then influenced by epigenetic factors or our environmental conditioning.
So there are many levels of control in the body and the causal prediction becomes weaker and weaker as we rise higher up in the causal chain because we have to take more and more factors into account in order to explain the incidence of a chemical reaction. Owing to this fact, the simple picture of the body is that there are chemical reactions, but a more complex picture is that these chemical reactions are influenced by our mental and emotional state, the history of this mental and emotional state, and even the inherited mental and emotional state of our parents. Therefore, we cannot formulate a simple physical picture of the reaction.
Both space and time are loops and trees. Loop means it is a closed region of space and time. An example of a closed region of space is a house, and an example of a closed region of time is an hour. The hierarchy is that a house is inside and a city and an hour is inside a day.
A more correct way to think about it is a house is a “unit” of space and an hour is a “unit” of time. Therefore, even though space and time can be subdivided we can understand in terms of larger units. Without these units, “hour” and “house” would not be individually meaningful; we would reduce these units always to smaller and smaller units in a reductionist theory.
One consequence of this hierarchy of space and time is the uncertainty relations in atomic theory. The atomic particle’s time is said to be “uncertain” because it is spread in time. Just like you can say that the year is 2018 but the year is not yet completely finished. Similarly, I can say that I’m in a city but I’m outside my house. There is hence a distinction between a position state and a classical position. The position state is like being in the house, and the classical position is like being in a particular room of the house. Atomic theory speaks about the position state which is certain, but the classical position is uncertain. However, experiments have shown that we can fix the position state to an ever-increasing degree of certainty, which is like saying that after I fix my position as being in the house, I can further fix the position of being in a room.
The hierarchical position and time are needed because of meanings. Just like you can say that the time is half past 12, but you haven’t said which day we are talking about. Similarly, you can say that I’m in the bedroom, but you haven’t said which specific house I’m in. So ‘bedroom’ is not universally meaningful; it is meaningful in relation to a particular house. Likewise, half past 12 is not meaningful universally; it is meaningful in relation to the particular day. The day is meaningful in relation to the month, the month in relation to the year, etc.
So, what we call the ‘cycle’ of time is actually a unit of time like a day that begins and ends, and the hierarchy of time is that the day is inside a month, which is inside a year, etc.
Falsifiability has just become a philosophy that people use to criticize what they don’t like, which is a euphemism for what falls outside the materialist dogma. Within the materialist dogma, even unfalsifiable theories are used. The world is not a fair place or even a rational one!
Theories are mental constructs and they are created by the creativity of the mind, justified by the beliefs in the intellect, and confirmed by sense perception. Scientists don’t acknowledge that theories are affected by pre-existing biases in the intellect or what we can call beliefs. They are also unable to explain how new ideas suddenly pop in the mind out of nowhere.
There is also a false idea that science has a “method” when the fact is that the scientific method is no different from the method employed by other people who don’t claim to be scientists. Even non-scientists are creative, they use reason, and confirm their ideas by experience. So, the notion that science is in a privileged position because it has a “method” while others don’t, is false.
Your question assumes that there is a unique method for forming scientific theories, which means we must try to understand this method, when the fact is that this method is just a partial representation of the broader thinking, feeling, creating, and judging processes. The only difference is that science is a collective activity while general thinking is individual. So, there are norms around rigor in thinking and judging and it is not free-thinking.
I don’t find any value in studying the “method of science” because (1) there is no consensus on what the method actually is, (2) people habitually step outside any of the defined methods, and (3) when they step outside they are tapping into the general human abilities. Hence, there is value in studying the general process of thought rather than the scientific method.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Ashish Dalela.
When the next revolution rocks physics, chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.
So the big bang says that the universe came from a singularity and you are saying that it came from nothing? How did the T=0K become billions of degrees of temperature in the sun?
BTW, the vacuum of quantum theory is different; it is just energy from which a pair of particles and antiparticles are created. It is never T=0K.November 19, 2018 at 3:06 pm in reply to: Why the Quantum theory cannot be explained in the common sense ? #6690
We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body of reference system they belong to, and all our physical construction appears erected on sand.
This is a partial statement. The full statement is:
Our interview reveals a grave difficulty in classical physics. We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body of reference system they belong to, and all our physical construction appears erected on sand.
So, they are not talking about quantum theory at all. They are talking about the problem in classical physics, and if you read the preceding statements they are talking about the problem of the inertial frame and how to define it, and they concede that there is no way to define it. Then they make the above statement, implying that whole of classical physics is based on the inertial frame and we don’t know how to define it. So, this entire construction is erected on the sand.
I would suggest a little more honesty in the conversation; putting words into some mouth way out of context isn’t going to get us anywhere. The problem of quantum theory is due to probabilities, plain and simple. Quantum phenomena are observationally complete which means everything that can be known observationally is already known. The order of quanta is empirical but the theory doesn’t predict this order. That is the central problem of quantum theory.
We don’t know the geometrical form of quantum particle.
This is another unjustified (and false) claim. The s orbitals are spherical, the p orbitals are dumbells, the d orbitals are double dumbells, etc. You can Google “quantum orbital shapes” and you will find dozens of articles that describe the geometrical form of the quantum particle. The difference between quantum and classical particles is that each particle has a different shape based on its “state”, so there is no difference between “state” and “particle”.
I did not delve any further because what is based on false premises will have a false conclusion.November 17, 2018 at 7:01 pm in reply to: Why is the Oneness so attractive for so many people? #6677
There are five kinds of liberation called sayujya, salokya, samipya, sarupya, and sarsti. The first one doesn’t require bhakti and the latter four require bhakti. So, when I say that worship of God can imply moksha I mean the later four types of liberation. When I say that moksha doesn’t imply worship of God I mean the first type of liberation. Krishna says bhaktya mam abhijanati or by bhakti I am known, which means that bhakti is sufficient, jnana is not necessary. But generally to practice pure bhakti one must have knowledge about God–How can you love God if you don’t know what God is? So, knowledge is knowledge about the nature of God.
As far as Brahma Sutra is concerned, it is written in a logical style in which there is a premise and each successive sutra adds to that premise. Nothing is repeated, just like in a mathematical proof every successive step takes the previous step and then adds something to it. Finally, you get to the conclusion. Given this style of writing, it is much harder to understand Brahma Sutra and a single misunderstanding in any step will mean misunderstanding of all the subsequent steps.
Srimad Bhagavatam — which was written by Vyas Deva after authoring Vedanta Sutra — is considered the natural commentary on Vedanta Sutra and it is written in a style where even if you don’t understand something you can proceed further and understand the rest. The conclusions are repeated many times and there isn’t a strict dependence on the premises to know the conclusion. Therefore, once we understand Srimad Bhagavatam then we can provide the proper interpretation of the Vedanta Sutra.
Finally, Western philosophy is not needed to understand anything in Vedic philosophy. I use Western philosophy for a very specific purpose, and that purpose is that I’m trying to formulate an alternative science, and to do that one needs to understand the philosophical basis of modern science, especially empiricism, rationalism, and materialism.
God knows what will happen, but not who will do it. The universal drama has a script that is decided by God’s will and then who wants to play which role is decided by the soul.
You can understand this in terms of economics. The market size is fixed but the actors in the market are free. The market size is simply the total number of transactions of giving and taking. Just like someone will borrow money from a bank and some bank will lend. The total amount of money borrowed and lent is fixed. But that doesn’t mean which bank will give to which borrower is fixed. God’s omniscience and control are about what will happen, not about who will do it. In terms of history, you can say that there will be someone who will do bad things and someone who will do good things, and the count of these good and bad deeds are fixed. But actors are not.
There is a scientific basis for this answer which I have discussed in a paper entitled “Choices in General Relativity”. The universe of events is fixed but the actors are not fixed.
You are basically posing the free will vs. determinism problem but you are giving it a theistic color by saying determinism is God’s foreknowledge. This is making things seem more complicated. You can remove God from this, and then you are plain and simple talking about determinism. Once you understand how free will is compatible with determinism the determinism created by God’s will be compatible with the free will of individual choices.
They are not related. Time in science is a parameter like space. However, unlike all positions in space that exist simultaneously, all instances of time don’t. So, there is some fundamental distinction between space and time, and modern science does not account for this distinction. Therefore, time “dimension” is treated just like space “dimension” in the theories. But practically people use everyday notions about time thinking that this time somehow moves forward. The reason it moves forward has no explanation, and is called the “arrow of time”.
We are free to will, but we depend on God for abilities and opportunities. Without the abilities and opportunities, our desires can only be frustrated. God is omniscient and He gives the abilities and opportunities based on the will. So He knows what you are willing and He fulfills that will by giving you abilities and opportunities. For example, you might want to eat tasty food, but that will is not good enough. You need cash in hand and then a restaurant where you can eat. Cash in hand is an ability, and the restaurant is an opportunity. If God doesn’t agree to this, then you won’t have cash and you will not find a restaurant. You can keep desiring.
If we have free will, that means we can choose an option from a host of other options.
Your question is based on the assumption that you are randomly seeing different things and then you are choosing. In other words, you are the master and decision-maker. This is an atheistic idea. The truth is that God knows what you want and He shows you and then you say “I’m attracted to this thing, and I want it.” If God did not know what you want, then you will see lots of random things, and you will say, “What a horrible experience, I never want it again.”
You have to realize that the possibilities are infinite, and what you will like or choose from those possibilities is so minuscule that the chances of you finding what you will like out of the infinite possible things are next to zero. The fact that you find so many things that you like is itself the grace of God. He knows you and He shows you that which you will like. This is His kindness. If He did not have kindness and omniscience, then everything you see, you will dislike.
You may have seen neon signs where a succession of blinking lights (lights that go on and off one after another) creates the impression of moving light. All those bulbs are a reality and they are not changing. However, time causes the light to go on and off and creates the impression of change.
Change is a phenomenon (the lighted bulb) and there are two causes of this phenomenon — the possibility of the switched-off bulb and time which switches on this bulb. Both the possibility and the time are eternal but the selection of possibility by time creates temporary effects.November 14, 2018 at 5:28 pm in reply to: Why is the Oneness so attractive for so many people? #6611
Moksha is tangentially related to God. Worship of God can imply moksha but moksha doesn’t imply worship of God. That’s why there is an impersonal liberation called Brahman. It is moksha but it is not worship of God. The only problem is that the jiva can (and does) fall from Brahman.
Similarly, moral life is necessary for God-consciousness, but God-consciousness is not necessary for a moral life. You can lead a moral life without being aware of God. It is not fear that drives one toward God but the desire to be in a loving relationship with God.
Yes, there is a difference between religion or dharma and spirituality or Sanatana-dharma. Dharma is dependent on place and time and circumstances. Hence, dharma changes with time. But Sanatana-dharma is unchanging. Smriti such as Manu Samhita can be considered dharma but not Sanatana-dharma in so far as it covers the rules of moral living.
Have you used pure ideas and forms interchangeably?
Yes, I have used them interchangeably.
Are all of the following pure ideas? – bottle, red bottle, red bottle with a scratch (If yes, are there infinitely many pure ideas?)
There is one universal reality. It has an abstract concept called ‘bottle’, a more refined concept called ‘red bottle’, and an even more refined concept called ‘red bottle with a scratch’. That’s why these concepts are hierarchical. However, ‘red bottle’ is not an independent idea. It is the idea of ‘bottle’ and then its modification by redness to create a ‘red bottle’. This constructs a tree that is literally infinite. We see parts of that tree at a time.
A bottle could appear as a generic “object” to a dog, as a “bottle” to person X and as “brother’s gift” to person Y. So aren’t forms subjective?
The ‘bottle’ is one idea on the cognition tree, and ‘brother’s gift’ is another concept on the relation tree. The cognition tree and the relation tree combine to create our experience. Just like a block of wood can be called a ‘chair’ by someone even though it is not cognitively a chair, it is still relationally a chair. The word ‘chair’ therefore can be cognitively or relationally so. This is why some linguists and philosophers have argued that forms are not objective; they are simply a relation to us. They don’t explain why something that we don’t view as an apple (because we don’t eat it) is still objectively an apple. So, we have to distinguish between what is objectively a chair and what we just treat as a chair through a relationship even though it is not objectively so.
Even that relational form is objective, just not an object. We should not mix objective with the object. Relationships are also objective, but they are not objects. Likewise, if a dog doesn’t view a chair as a chair (because it doesn’t sit on the chair) that is due to the relation. It doesn’t refute the fact that there is objectively a chair. So, this raises the question: What is the objective chair? It is merely a possibility or ability. It can be used as a chair (and perhaps other things). When we use it as a chair, we have the right relationship through which we exploit the possibility of being a chair. So, there is no contradiction in these things, once we distinguish objects from relationships.