All Discussions Tagged 'Quantum' - Theosophy.Net2024-03-29T06:01:20Zhttps://theosophy.net/group/science/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=Quantum&feed=yes&xn_auth=noQuantum Mechanicstag:theosophy.net,2019-06-17:3055387:Topic:1632242019-06-17T17:08:34.243ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p></p>
<p>The Great Courses are usually pretty good. Some people may be interested in this. This is 85% off. …</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.thegreatcourses.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/plus_image/800x451/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/9/7/9750-understanding-the-quantum-world.1553531776.jpg" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img class="align-center" src="https://www.thegreatcourses.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/plus_image/800x451/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/9/7/9750-understanding-the-quantum-world.1553531776.jpg?profile=RESIZE_710x"></img></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>The Great Courses are usually pretty good. Some people may be interested in this. This is 85% off. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.thegreatcourses.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/plus_image/800x451/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/9/7/9750-understanding-the-quantum-world.1553531776.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://www.thegreatcourses.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/plus_image/800x451/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/9/7/9750-understanding-the-quantum-world.1553531776.jpg?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.thegreatcourses.com/fb9750?ai=175747&cmp=Social_Facebook_Advertising_2019QuantumWorld&fbclid=IwAR3PEKnJaV4eboQj8FM5ksFsVYQbwDn8zThmpl9EIAlyoimyMhKo4NMoCOc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Quantum Mechanics course</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> VEDIC LOGIC AND QUANTUM KNOWLEDGEtag:theosophy.net,2013-02-05:3055387:Topic:1211572013-02-05T04:36:47.148ZHari Menonhttps://theosophy.net/profile/HariMenon
<p>Thank you for your encouragement and extending assent to continue in this thread . I wish to just acquaint you with some things prior to writing about Vedic Logic since the ideas are quite necessary as a preliminary .</p>
<p>In Vedic logic an inverted perspective is employed since our ancients percieved that our natural way of looking at things was /or had an error - in that it did not allow a person to "see the background (or substratum) of anything but only the foreground objects".…</p>
<p>Thank you for your encouragement and extending assent to continue in this thread . I wish to just acquaint you with some things prior to writing about Vedic Logic since the ideas are quite necessary as a preliminary .</p>
<p>In Vedic logic an inverted perspective is employed since our ancients percieved that our natural way of looking at things was /or had an error - in that it did not allow a person to "see the background (or substratum) of anything but only the foreground objects". Moreover according to them what was responsible for this partial knowledge ie. knowledge of things seen but not not of those unseen - was due to the impinging of the day to day objects on the background of our knowledge - much as like loud noises and colours and other big objects would have the effect of distracting us , sometimes even to the extent of so disconcerting to us that we would have to search hard for what exactly we were thinking or doing before the distraction occured.</p>
<p>Now according to them this was not an "inverted perspective'' but rather a correction in the flawed way we were looking at things , what they percieved was that on seeing an object or (in coming to know of the object) there was an inherent inversion the knowledge garnered created in our otherwise pristine knowledge (much as a lense in a camera would invert the image ) only here the inversion was not in the image but in our knowledge !. So Vedic Logic attempts to correct this perspective as partial knowledge was always considered as wrong knowledge . A keen and understanding mind is required to grasp this and the logic . moreover it only required understanding as knowledge would work on knowledge once it was understood correctly - It was also helpful in that this is the logic employed in all karikas and texts wherever things were propounded as well as in the epics and Yoga sutras etc.</p>
<p>I am following a classical approach but removing all the sanskrit terms and rigidity and some illustrations are only used to get the point home - moreover it is to be understood in the aspect of Total knowledge and a gradual rise to it .</p>
<p>Again the examples have over the years been enlivened as they are used throughout the vedas and , the vedas do not use multifarous examples , so wherever a person learns them it is in the same form that it was expounded thousands of years earlier and have acquired a potency to demonstrate knowledge once the import is accurately grasped. </p>
<p>One need not worry about delineations that one comes across in books like Hetu,Sambandham etc ( Major premise , minor or conclusion) I will append the reasoning only so that the correctness is grasped and can be contrasted by the reader with how he was seeing the same thing previously .The conclusions naturally will follow from understanding .</p>
<p>Some examples:</p>
<p>An object is revealed not by sunlight but because it is non luminous (or not capable of self illumination) . Sunlight is not the cause of its being revealed but the cause of it being brought to our cognizance is due to the fact that it cannot illuminate itself .</p>
<p>Here it may seem strange but as a fact , the ancients used to insist that the cause and effect have to be INTIMATELY connected and as far as possible it has to be immediate and no new parameters should be introduced into the equation since it would vitiate knowledge . For them one of the tests of right cause being attributed to right effect is one of the indications of right reasoning .This reasoning may be applied to various cases and validated .</p>
<p>Another example is : A man in a shadow (or shade) does not feel the heat( not because of the shadow) , but due to his refraining to interact with things having heat in them ..... for coolness is not a property of a shadow (or shade). </p>
<p> A thing to be noted is Universality of the applicability of the statement to ones own conviction ..</p>
<p>Here also the effect is allied as close as possible to the cause - one cannot just loosely say that the suns action is not there on the man - in which case one has to "Assume" (mentally and intellectually by images and a priori knowledge) many objects and instruments and other causes and effects thus making it interminable , giving rise to a fantastic mind (a mind riddled with fantasy) with roots in memory.</p>
<p>This much being said , a question will naturally rise as to what is wrong in saying that it is the sun or the sunrays which reveal an object . Such a pedestrian reasoning has its pitfalls in that , the sun (would in our consciousness and knowledge consequently ) acquire a conditioning "by the sun" meaning - To do - as in a person and would lead to a conferring of "life" on the sun as if it were a ''human being"" or "being" whereas in terms of scale (or size ) it is a relationship between the Earth and its non consciousness . </p>
<p>We are similarly culpable of painting nature as a woman, beautiful , etc etc . Nature is implacable and impersonal and treats everyone the same . It is calm , active and violent - just as human natures are - here the connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm is attained through understanding and knowledge alone . </p>
<p>Otherwise we struggle to "imagine'' and merge the microcosm in the macrocosm or see it as an unbroken part of the unified whole . </p>
<p>Another example is : which came first the seed or the Tree ? - It is the Tree that came first . ---- strange as it may seem why is it so ? .. According to them everything in the world consists of Names and Forms , and names and forms are what are grasped by the mind - what does not have name or form cannot be grasped by the mind (we leave it at that ) .</p>
<p>Now according to them a person is acquainted with "knowledge'' of objects of perception in the following ways The Form or object is percieved by a person and he is "told'' that it is a Tree or House or Car or Dog etc by someone else IN THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE IN HIS LIFE or he reads or hears about it - but anyway a pictorial representation is a must . So on an other wise plain tabula rasa of a memory or mind or knowledge a person aggregates what is known as perceptional knowledge and their impressions. ie. in short a thing is pointed out or indicated and its representation connected to the knowledge of the word. or sound . internally .</p>
<p>Here the logic is that - All things percieved are EFFECTS . - In the outer world it is understood that the Tree is an effect (If the person was FIRST acquainted in consciousness and knowledge with a Tree in the inner world it is Cause) . Now a person may ask why it cannot be a seed as it is well known trees come from seeds .. The logic was - it may be so - but then a problem of non immediacy arises in the relationship - for if a tree (HIS TREE the reasoners) were to come from a seed , then that seed would have to come from another Tree , and so on into an infinite regression . And again there would be a violation of the "All things perceived are Effects" - for the seed would be an effect and an effect cannot come from an effect .A seed has to give forth a seed - not a tree . From a tree similarly a tree would be the cause . So we have now two things which are both effects depending on how the knowledge came to him in the FIRST INSTANCE . This law requiring that all things connected by cause and effect have to be RELATED SUBSTANTIALLY to the thing under consideration (like the sun illuminating a house ). is to be strictly adhered to if we have to know the truth of things . This law of Effect on FIRST knowledge of an object was brought in to preempt the wrong thought process in knowledge whereby ultimately a man goes on thinking infinitly as to whether a tree came from a seed the that seed would have to come from a tree etc etc in infinity . And thus lead to a state of indeterminacy - indeterminacy would create doubt and doubt was the nature of the mind , whilst determinacy was the nature of the intellect . And since doubt is a creation of the person himself involved in reasoning and shows flawed understanding and consciousness - the point of infinite regression in any person was the point of pure ignorance due to a forgetting of the FIRST memory as to whether he was acquainted with a seed and then a Tree or a Tree and then the relationship of the Tree to it . So man if he does not remember his first experience has to make a principled stand and decide HIMSELF (thus eliminating doubt) whether in his opinion it was a Tree which came first or seed .- The thing to be understood in the above dissertation is that primacy was given to the operations of the mind and how it worked - since everything was conjured up instantaneously when a sound was heard - Thinking is an act that takes place in the dream consciousness even if we are awake , this is the thing to be noted.</p>
<p>Now the majority will be acquainted with Tree rather than seed , and as Trees are everywhere it is ingrained in our consciousness and knowledge that Trees are taken for granted , and moreover when the word Tree is mentioned a mental image is formed in our mind (of a Tree in general) - so the Cause is a Tree in which case there is a harmony between the Gross perception of the eye in the outer physical world , and In the mental world of thought and in the intellect which has the knowledge and in memory .Here emphasis is on seen and heard knowledge relating to physical objects . </p>
<p>Similarly a person is precluded by this into tracing his cause of birth to the sun , or god, or even his grand parents etc. </p>
<p>And an argumentative disputant is immediately located and thrown out of the debate . For if a person says the cause of his birth is the womb of his mother - no - Scale requires scale and consistency in both the Cause and effect .</p>
<p>So the correspondance of knowledge in consciousness has to be both of scale and equality of item . (naturally this is to get the right image - from which Species will follow which is a matter of intellect ) . Womb is a matter of discussion if only the subject is of conception and fertilization . One cannot talk to a fully grown man that his mothers womb is responsible for his birth as an illustration of cause and effect - the vulgarity and grossness in thinking is brought out by the statement of such a person who reasons so. HIs mind is fully known and also his knowledge and character . </p>
<p>. In all thinking , everything has to be short and direct but universal at that level .</p>
<p>So what we mean here is that (in western terminology) "Material Cause" (or Substantial Cause ) is required . Clay pot comes from Clay. not from potter . Moreover it is validated by our conscious knowledge for when somebody says "Clay pot" he remembers the image of the pot not the potter or the idea that a potter and earth have to be added !!!. </p>
<p>Similarly gold ornaments are nothing but Gold . </p>
<p>Clay pot is nothing but Earth . </p>
<p> Here what is to be noted is that the accent was on the ACTUAL obtaining situation in knowledge and consciousness by our ancients . For one associates (internally) on seeing or hearing the words clay pot or gold ornaments - first the Object per se "is seen internally and externally" next it is associated with the FEELING and KNOWLEDGE "Earthen or Gold" as the case may be . </p>
<p>By this we can locate erroneous thinking within ourselves and by becoming aware it is corrected automatically .</p>
<p>So a question as to if a glass is half full or half empty can be immediately shut out - for the questioner has to frame it first and the question gives the answer itself . </p>
<p>How is this done ? Assuming that it is a well known conundrum the most taut question can be if a person asks such an unfair question by the words : Would you say that a glass is half empty or half full - this is trolling and inadmissible since there is a preconcieved notion by the questioner that it is well known so answer is due to him - One can just let it pass or ask him to elucidate it so as to "see" his mind - he will have to ''Assume " a glass , a liquid . a pouring of the liquid by a someone to a desired level etc !!!! All which leaves a million loopholes to shoot it to bits . Or one can resort and give a considered reply that it is Full of space .</p>
<p>One should not introduce actions, instruments and agents without notifying the other party into any argument or debate .</p>
<p>One should not get into any debate or discussion where the ground rules are not known , ie. if a discussion on the existence of God is elicited by an awowed athiest - he has to first agree to the word God and what it means in the word concept - rather than use the word God and say that God does not exist , it is a Tamasic and most ignorant thing to say since he needs the word God to define the non existence . Of course the word Atheist if being discussed has to be agreed upon as ITSELF and not as some vague "meaning god does not exist'' - since it is another language and word meaning and idea would be different - which ultimately would lead to a conclusion of it being a state of mind or knowledge of a person !!.</p>
<p>So if a man complains he has been called a dog by another and frets he is being stupid - the other person cannot distinguish between a dog and man , and the hearer does not become a dog either !! if he feels aggrieved it means he has lost the humour of the situation altogether - he cannot become aggrieved because of anothers faulty logic and knowledge and consciousness (however temporary the lapse may be ). Krama becomes Karma gradually . </p>
<p>There is no day or night </p>
<p>There is no silver in mother of pearl</p>
<p>When we say "like'' (ie as ) and say an example people understand as "is'' in the absence of proper thinking - they approximate the like to is in consciousness and it becomes a habit .</p>
<p>Too much doubts indicate inability to think in the general and infer correctly to the particular - (conversly) treating the particular as the general .</p>
<p> People might wonder what QM has to do with all this - QM is dealing with infinitesmally small measurements , maybe knowledge can be included as a QM variable ? </p>
<p>Note : I do not physically mean a disputant or a debate with another person - It is all in our own ways of thinking and is an internal dialogue or process in thinking within us - of course it is applicable in the outer world also but knowing and silence is better in the outside world - one allows everything to be said and goes along so to say !!</p>
<p>//</p>
<p></p>
<p>There is a thing to be said about knowledge , which we assimilate (It is something to be taken into account when you read the far fetched post below ) Unlike physical objects , perceptional knowledge or results of proofs and evidences were considered thus (if it is of help in understanding the previous post ) </p>
<p>There was a so called knowledge based on physical evidences arising in the consciousness of the observer , and this knowledge would stay for a period as long as it was pondered upon and then vanish when the thinking process was left off . And since knowledge however defective has to arise (as in dream - ie. in the subtle world of mind and matter) since it was based on evidences , it was considered to have arisen from a like "Cause'' ie knowledge which was pure and complete . It had a vanishing point when the thought was left off and unlike in ordinary physical matters it was found to revert back to pure knowledge. And the same was recalled from knowledge at an instant when the recall function was applied. It appears as if from nowhere like magic only to stay for a while and then vanish - and these time frames of genesis of secondary knowledge could only be from a like thing and not from something substantially different ., and it was sustained in knowledge and could revert back to knowledge . Of physical things it was found that we percieve only the effects and never the cause - the cause in popular parlance was a deconstruction of the effect - which was considered impossible , whereas in the internal world it was possible . So in essence what it means is that in the physical world there is actually no cause and effect but rather discrete events - this was so because it was not just an intellectual exercise , the reality was also considered - for instance in the case of Milk becoming curd , in the physical world the right reasoning is that Milk though the ostensible cause and curd the effect - considering the way the perception of objects took place by a conscious individual and how it affects his knowledge - milk is an effect in the physical world as well as Curd since milk required the addition of Agents and Instruments - and agents and instruments were a matter of the intellect and its knowledge . In the inner world both arise in the mind without knowledge as if in dream and cognition is by the intellect wherein it determines the object percieved with relation to previous knowledge of the Agent and Instruments and of connecting cause and effect in one quick instant . So mind has a random character and it cannot distinguish the particular image - it just displays all images as if in dream and so is chaotic whilst the intellect determines the object by prior knowledge . It is particular as related to the generality of the mind but in turn though particular at that level it in effect is general in relation to the Ego or empirical self . So basically the 5 senses are general (ie they are just conduits and cannot distinguish the object to which they relate their attribute) but become particular in the mind ( as an aggregation of senses and thus image of the object is produced) and the particularity of the mind is general compared to the(knowledge of the ) intellect and the particularity in the intellect becomes general in comparison to the knowledge in the Ego (empirical) . to clarify matters - the Ego contains the background data also as well as the foreground data of an object of knowledge thus making it complete in almost every respect . IT becomes perfect knowledge when the person has knowledge of the real self . I hope I have not been too obtuse and confusing</p>
<p></p>
<p> </p> Mind the (Quantum) Context (October 8, 2012 )tag:theosophy.net,2012-10-15:3055387:Topic:1172342012-10-15T21:01:09.761ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>"A new optical experiment provides further proof that quantum mechanics is not hiding some classical framework beneath its veneer of context-dependent observations."</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/113" target="_blank">ViewPoint - Physics highlights</a> (Online Journal)</p>
<p>Article: <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2867572588?profile=original" target="_self">Mind the (Quantum) Contextuality</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Note: This article is a…</p>
<p>"A new optical experiment provides further proof that quantum mechanics is not hiding some classical framework beneath its veneer of context-dependent observations."</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/113" target="_blank">ViewPoint - Physics highlights</a> (Online Journal)</p>
<p>Article: <a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2867572588?profile=original">Mind the (Quantum) Contextuality</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Note: This article is a good example of how choices by a mind can alter the outcome of a physical experiment. Here it is expressed as a guessing game with a Name on a sheet of Paper (sealed in an envelope). They express it in this way so people can think in more familiar areas.</p>
<p>=================================================</p>
<p>Quote from article:</p>
<p>"</p>
<p>In the “Who am I” game, a closed envelope containing<br/> the name or picture of a celebrity is given to a player (say<br/> Alice). The celebrity’s identity is known to all the other<br/> players but not to Alice, who has a certain (agreed upon)<br/> number of questions to ask the others in order to find out<br/> the name in her envelope. Needless to say, the identity<br/> of the celebrity is there in the envelope, regardless of<br/> whether Alice is able to guess it or not.<br/> <br/> Quantum observables do not have predefined values […]<br/> That means Alice now has to mind the order of her interrogations. In<br/> quantum “Who am I,” the name in the envelope could<br/> change if Alice asks about the celebrity’s occupation before<br/> asking where he or she was born. But the range<br/> of questions matters as well. The answer to “male or<br/> female?” may depend on whether or not Alice decides<br/> to ask about the celebrity’s hair color. In terms of an<br/> experiment, the outcome of an observation is critically<br/> dependent on the assignment of a set of mutually compatible<br/> (i.e., commuting) observables. In sum, quantum<br/> theory minds the context within which observations are<br/> performed. Even more strikingly, this contextuality is a<br/> general feature of all quantum states, not just a select<br/> subset.<br/> "</p>
<p></p>
<p>Examples like this are very nice illustrations of how Mind and reality are quite coupled in an observable way. Actually, Free-will may be more appropriate than Mind.</p>
<p></p>
<p>John</p>
<p></p>
<p>p.s. the article is written for non-technical people. However - feel free to ask questions... non-technical is still technical to very many people !! </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>