Science and Advaita - 2

[Guest guest]

Quantum uncertainty

In trying to describe the world at small scales of size, modern physics has developed mechanical instruments like microscopes, which help us to observe what happens in smaller spaces and shorter times than our unaided senses can detect. As modern physics looks down into smaller and smaller scales of size, it shows us that matter is made up of tiny molecules, which account for a variety of solid and liquid and gaseous states of matter that our senses perceive.

On further investigation, these molecules are shown to be made of even smaller parts, called 'atoms'. Moreover, by describing how atoms are combined into molecules, we get an effective account of chemical substances, which react upon each other so as to form the solids and liquids and gases that show up in the material world.

But as we come down to the scale of atoms, and as we try to look at even tinier scales inside them, the mechanical approach of modern physics has come up against a rather tricky problem, which is prominently described in quantum mechanics. Here, it turns out that our mechanical instruments are jerky and uncertain in their measurements, to a substantial degree that we can't properly control.

The more accurately we measure space, the less accurately we can measure speed and momentum. The more accurately we measure time, the less accurately we can measure energy and mass. As a result, in the theory of quantum fields, modern physicists have to concede that what seems to be empty space is not empty at all, when described more accurately. It is filled with huge fluctuations of momentum and energy; and the fluctuations get unlimitedly huge, as we consider smaller and smaller spaces or shorter and shorter times.

The world is thus shown to be more and more complex, unlimitedly so, at smaller and smaller scales of space and time. And our mechanical measurements are shown to be correspondingly uncertain and compromised. It is to manage this uncertainty that modern physicists have been forced to adopt a double standard of consideration.

On the one hand, the observing instruments are assumed to be fabricated mechanically, as material structures that have been made up from crude pieces of matter. These pieces of matter are inevitably crude and so too are the instruments we fabricate from them, because of their coarse and their incomplete perception through our limited and partial senses.

On the other hand, what's observed is considered in a far more subtle and sophisticated way, as a conditioned field. The field is described by attributing a mathematical value to each point event of happening in space and time. What's thus considered is not just a material construction. It is not just a construction that has been made up materially: from pieces of matter that we have so crudely perceived through our partial senses, and through their gross extension by mechanical instruments.

Instead, what's considered here -- through this field description -- is far subtler and far more essential, in a more deeply connected accounting of what is observed. What's here considered is a pervasive conditioning of the space-time continuum, taken as a whole.

From this perspective of a problematic double standard, what quantum mechanics shows is the result of a mismatch: between a subtle field conditioning and much cruder instruments through which that conditioning is mechanically observed. The mismatch must of course produce uncertain and jerky measurements; but quantum physics works by acknowledging and thus partly allowing for the uncertainty and jerkiness.

Through a repeated application of this partial allowance, quantum theory and its instruments have been progressively developed -- so as to improve our mechanical technology, in its achievement of particular results. The improvements have been obviously successful, but their particular results must be paid for by an inevitable cost of using such mechanical technology.

The cost is unavoidable in this mechanical approach, because its particular results are achieved by specifying them more narrowly. As a variety of desired results are thus narrowed down objectively, they require diverging specializations that must somehow be co-ordinated, to make them work together in a shared environment.

And the co-ordination must then multiply complexity, in order to accommodate an ever-growing diversity of specified requirements. Both theory and technology get here mind-boggling and opaque, to the intuitive understanding of our living faculties. It thus turns out that something more is needed than a merely mechanical approach, which does no more than calculate results.

Space-time geometry

As quantum theory has developed, its most common interpretation is that nature prevents us from knowing things correctly, beyond an irreducible minimum of unpredictable uncertainty. But Einstein found this unacceptable. In his approach to science, it is quite wrong to lay the blame for our uncertainties on nature. This kind of blame results from our personal and cultural frustrations, as we keep finding that nature's functioning is essentially more subtle than we are able to describe, in our constructed pictures of the world. As Einstein put it himself: 'Nature hides her secret by her essential loftiness, not by a deceiving strategy.'

In order to find better pictures of the world, Einstein looked for invariant principles which are found shared in common, beneath the variety of changing phenomena that are observed from differing perspectives. The special theory of relativity is founded on the invariant speed of light; but this special theory is restricted to observers whose motion is unaccelerated in relation to each other.

After this special theory, Einstein went on to consider what happens when the relative movements of observers are accelerated. And here he realized that through such accelerating motions, various differing observers would experience forces that are exactly the same as gravity. Accordingly, the forces of acceleration and of gravity were shown to be differing appearances of the same invariant principle, which is mathematically described as a geometric curvature of the space-time continuum.

In this description of space-time, there is no longer a material mechanics where three-dimensional objects interact through force. Instead there is only an immaterial geometry, whose points are four-dimensional events. The point-events are connected into lines of travel, by a four-dimensional geometry that includes the usual three dimensions of co-existing space and a fourth dimension of passing time.

Thus, space and time are described as combined inextricably together, in a single geometric continuum which extends through all objects and events. As Einstein used this geometric description to explain the phenomenon of gravity, he saw again a fundamental principle. In the continuum itself, as Einstein conceived of it, there is no forced movement. As an object moves in a gravitational field, its path of travel is quite straight. Its path must always travel through the shortest line between its different point-events. The path of travel is thus always natural and unforced, in the underlying continuity of space and time.

But, because the space-time geometry is curved, lines that are straight in four dimensions may appear to be bent and twisted unnaturally, when they are viewed through a changing world of three-dimensional space. To understand this problem, it may help to think of travelling in a hilly terrain -- whose geometry is curved and bumpy. The geometric bumpiness must complicate a traveller's perception of the shortest path from one place to another. This shortest path is a straight line of travel in the hilly geometry. But this straight path must seem to bend and twist somewhat unnaturally, to an undiscerning traveller.

In much the same way, where the space-time continuum is geometrically curved, it must appear that the motion of an object in the material world has been forced into changing its speed or its direction. This appearance of forced motion is a superficial show. It arises from a background continuity that is more fundamental. There, nature is connected geometrically, beneath all mechanisms that appear to work through interacting force.

Thus, Einstein sought to go beyond a material picture of the world, made up of objects that are driven by interacting force. And he did this by reflecting to a background continuity, where nature carries on unforced throughout all changing happenings. In his general theory of relativity, he described that continuity geometrically, as an immaterial space-time continuum where nature is found manifested in all differentiated objects and all changing events.

In this manifestation of continued nature, objects are perceived to appear, as pieces of matter that are differently located in the three dimensions of space. But this is a superficial and misleading perspective, seen through our partial and inaccurate senses of bodily perception. To be less partial and more accurate, both space and time must be conceived together, as an underlying continuum that subtly connects all different-seeming things. All seemingly material happenings are only differing and changing appearances, by which one single continuity of nature is made manifest throughout all space and time.

However, it must be admitted here that the theory of relativity has only had a limited and mixed success, in its attempts to explain the forces of nature. Its description of gravity has met with a partial success, in our macroscopic views of the universe at large. But, despite considerable efforts, there has been no successful explanation as to how electromagnetism might be reduced to space-time geometry.

Electromagnetism is still best described by quantum field theory, as a force that is produced by huge fluctuations of momentum and energy in tiny neighbourhoods of space and time. These fluctuations are so minutely close and so blindingly rapid that our instruments cannot observe them directly. What we observe instead is an overall effect which can be detected: as various kinds of force that get to be exerted on the objects we observe.

In what seems to be empty space, the overall effect of quantum field fluctuations is zero. Here, the individual fluctuations cancel each other out, so that our coarse instruments don't show us anything. But where our instruments show objects moved by force, that is a coarsely averaged effect of these huge field fluctuations in extremely tiny neighbourhoods.

Similarly, through this quantum field conception, two other basic forces have been described, to account for the behaviour of matter and energy at sub-atomic and sub-nuclear scales of size. These two forces are called 'weak' and 'strong'. The 'weak' force accounts for radioactivity, through the disintegration of neutrons and many other particles. The 'strong' force accounts for the formation of a great variety of particles, through the binding together of more fundamental particles called 'quarks'.

As things stand at present, there is an unresolved opposition, between the differing approaches of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity:

 

 

 

In quantum mechanics, there is a predominant insistence on discontinuity and uncertainty. Here, it is claimed that nature forces us to observe things with a minimum of jerkiness and fuzziness that we can never go beyond.

 

 

 

In the theory of relativity, the emphasis is basically on continuity and certainty. The space-time continuum is inherently continuous and fully determined. All differing parts of space and all changing periods of time are contained in it; so when it is considered as a whole, it must exist 'all at once', beyond all missing gaps and confusing doubts that may appear through our partial and uncertain observations. Wherever we perceive any discontinuity or uncertainty, these qualities don't properly belong to the continuum itself. They must be more superficial and compromised appearances, which have been superimposed by imperfect observation.

Thus, modern physics is in something of a quandary. It has made some extraordinary progress in two different kinds of description that are basically opposed.

On the one hand, a quantum description sets final limits that are forced by nature on the continuity and certainty of our observations. It says that our measurements can only go so far and no further, in reducing the discontinuous and uncertain gaps that we find in our pictures of the world. But on the other hand, a relativistic description shows a continuum that has no gaps nor any force, but only turns and twists in it.

The quantum approach accordingly sees nature as inherently compromised by force and disruption; while the approach of relativity sees nature as essentially uncompromised, beneath its compromised appearances through our imperfect observations and understanding.

The opposition here is fundamental. It shows two opposing directions of scientific enquiry:

 

 

 

On the one hand, as quantum mechanics has developed, its direction is insistently objective. Its main concern is to calculate predictions, through objective pictures that are tested and applied through the mechanical instruments of an objective technology.

 

But on the other hand, in Einstein's theory of relativity, the direction is more basically subjective. For Einstein's overwhelming concern was to reflect back into the depth of mind, in search of invariant principles that underlie the varying phenomena of nature.

 

 

A great majority of modern physicists are inclined towards the objective approach of quantum mechanics, which has proved very effective in an extensive development of mechanical and industrial technology. And a somewhat bemused objection is often raised against both Einstein and Newton -- for their intensive emphasis upon subjective and spiritual reflection, in exploring the foundations of scientific enquiry.

 

The objection comes from a habitual assumption, that a subjective reflection is just personal. If this assumption is accepted, then it must necessarily discount the value of a subjective approach to science. For science seeks a knowledge that cannot be confined to any of our partial personalities. A scientific knowledge must be true impersonally -- beneath our many personal differences, which make us do and see and think and feel things differently.But is it right to assume that a subjective reflection is just personal? This question will be taken up in the next posting, which will go on to consider the organic sciences.Ananda

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this post.

 

I had read a while back that atoms are " empty " .

 

All the elements composing the physical universe are known and are

stable in their specific caracteristics. For example, oxygen will

liquify invariably, constantly at the same temperature. Same for the

caracteristics of all the elements. And none have " consciousness " .

 

The physical body and the physical universe is then made of emptiness.

Consciousness is the background. Then it must be consciousness that

is " behind " all creation.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

 

 

Sri Anandaji,

 

Is this " uncertainty " linkable to " consciousness " ? Is Einstein's

picture making everything predetermined? It seems that the QM people

are basically avoiding the issue which religious people may attribute

to the underlying Consciousness as Reality of existence. Whereas

Einstein's deterministic position is emphatically saying NO and

viewing all as a robot in entirety.

 

Also, how does Science's reduction of matter to a substratum called

" energy " compare with our reduction of nama-rupa to Brahman? Are they

equivalent or are we saying more or different?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nonduel,

In your post #40790 of Tue Jun 10, you say that you "had read a while back that atoms are 'empty'." Well, it depends on what is meant by the word 'empty'.

As modern physics now describes an 'atom' or a 'particle', it is not just a tiny piece of matter from which bigger objects are made. There are in fact two rather different ways in which a seeming 'particle' might now be described. One is in quantum theory, with its systems of mechanical activity. And the other is in the theory of relativity, with its space-time geometry.

Particles in quantum theory

In quantum theory, a particle is described as a component element in a system of activity. Each such particle is here a way of stepping up or stepping down the activity of a whole system: as for example when an atom absorbs a photon of light that raises an orbiting electron to a higher level of energy. And of course conversely, when an atom emits a photon through the dropping of an orbiting electron to a lower level.

But quantum theory does not only describe molecules and atoms and subatomic particles. It also describes some fields of force through which various particles may interact with each other. Such fields of force occur throughout all space, as described in the theory of quantum fields. And here, there is no such thing as empty space.

Though space may sometimes look empty, it is always filled with unlimitedly huge fluctuations of momentum and energy. These fluctuations are called 'virtual particles'. They keep on being created and destroyed, so blindingly fast that our instruments cannot detect them directly.

What looks like calm and empty space is here described as unlimitedly violent and crowded -- at smaller scales than we can detect directly, through the coarseness and the crudity of our material instruments. After each virtual particle has been created, it is destroyed so fast that our instruments cannot observe its individual occurrence.

What we observe instead is an overall effect, of these hugely violent and crowded fluctuations called 'virtual particles'. The fluctuations are both positive and negative, so that their crowding close together makes them often cancel each other out, in their effect upon our observing instruments. It's where this mutual cancelling appears that our observing instruments do not show anything. And it's just there that emptiness appears, as our crude instruments observe it mechanically.

To this crudely mechanical observation, vast regions of empty space appear -- at large macrocosmic scales, in between the galaxies and stars and planets. Similarly, space seems mainly empty at small microcosmic scales, in between molecules and atoms and subatomic particles. It's only at the in between scale of our bodies and their senses that the world seems made of solid and liquid and gaseous matter.

In sum, as we look through our bodily senses, they first produce a show of matter in the world. But when we look further and more accurately, through our mechanically developed instruments, we see more gaps of empty space, both macroscopically and microscopically. If we go on to look more closely still, at how it is that objects interact across their separating gaps, then it turns out that there's no empty space at all, but only an unlimitedly violent and crowded fluctuation which keeps occurring everywhere. This is, in short, what we are told by quantum field theory.

Much the same view, of a subtly but violently fluctuating universe, has been described from ancient times. Here is a description from the Katha Upanishad, 6.2:

yad idam kim ca jagat sarvamprana ejati nihsrtam .

The universe of changing things --whatever may be issued forth --it is all made of living energy:which moves and oscillates and shines.

mahad bhayam vajram udyatamya etad vidur amrtas te ..

That's a great terror, an upliftedthunderbolt. But those whorealize this come to deathlessness.

In the first part of the above stanza, the world is described as everywhere made up of fluctuating energy. In the second part, the fluctuation is acknowledged to be terrrible and violent. But that very acknowledgement is affirmed to be a means by which we clarify our living faculties of observation, and thus attain to deathlessness. An ancient learning here describes a living clarification that goes far beyond the mechanical approach of modern physics.

Particles in space-time geometry

In the theory of relativity, a particle may be conceived as a tiny 'black hole', into which many space-time paths converge and disappear. Here, to imagine what happens, one has to think of the space-time continuum as a kind of skin. But it is not a two-dimensional skin, like a sheet of cloth or rubber which we can picture as looking curved from a three-dimensional perspective. Instead, it is a four-dimensional skin that must somehow be described as curved -- although we have no intuitive picture of an even higher dimensional perspective that would readily show it as curved, to the outward senses of our bodies in their material world of three dimensions only.

So we are obliged to think analogically, by first imagining a curvy two-dimensional sheet and thus developing some idea of a four dimensional sheet that is similarly curved. In particular, to conceive of a 'black hole', one can imagine the mouth of a trumpet which flares out to a very large rim. The trumpet is of course made from a continuous sheet of metal. At the outermost rim of the trumpet the sheet is pretty flat; but if we go inwards from the rim the metal sheet curves into a sort of hole which is formed by the main body of the trumpet.

A 'black hole' is something like that trumpet mouth, with the two-dimensional metal sheet replaced by a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Just as lines from the trumpet rim can go into the hole in the trumpet's body, so also space-time paths go into a 'black hole' formed by the curving geometry of space-time continuity.

Thinking along these lines, a particle may be described as a tiny 'black hole', with space-time paths converging into it. But this raises some tricky and as yet quite baffling problems. These space-time paths are continued paths of travel. To where do they continue, after they have gone into the hole? Do they come out in some other part of space-time? If they do, as it logically seems they should, they would be something like 'worm-holes', which could then form interconnections between different parts of space-time.

By conceiving of a particle like this, as a 'worm-hole' in space-time, it could be said that a particle is 'empty'. But what is it empty of? It's empty of matter, certainly, where 'matter' is taken to be something added from outside into space-time. But a 'worm-hole' is not empty of the essential continuity that logically must pervade throughout all space and time.

The space-time continuum is never empty anywhere. Its very continuity is just that essential, though immaterial 'substance' in which all objects consist, beneath their changing appearances. And if we conceive that seeming matter is made up of 'worm-hole' particles, then this very appearance of matter shows us an amazingly intricate interconnection between different parts of space time.

So far, this idea of a 'worm-hole' particle has not been of much use in the mechanical descriptions of modern physics. I personally have a hunch that it needs to be considered rather more deeply and accordingly linked up with the rather different description of particles in quantum theory. But I would not expect any great breakthroughs here in the near future of modern physics. Some radical rethinking is required, and who knows when that sort of rethinking may come about.

Knowing in the background

You go on to say that "The physical body and the physical universe is then made of emptiness. Consciousness is the background."

Here, I'd return to the question of what's meant by the word 'emptiness'. Are the body and the world made up of empty appearances, which do not show us anything? Yes, the appearances are 'empty' in the sense that their show is misleading. They seem to show us changing things; but when we look more carefully, this show turns out to be untrue.

What's shown in truth is only that which does not change. And that alone remains unchanged, at the background of experience, in every person's mind. There, at the background, what's experienced is pure consciousness, beneath all changing show of mind. That consciousness stays present always, unaffected by all change.

All show of change is known from there: from that unchanging background of pure consciousness, beneath all changes that appear.

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri thollmelukaalkizhu,

In posting #40802 of Fri Jun 13, you asked, in relation to quantum theory:

Is this "uncertainty" linkable to "consciousness"?

Yes 'knowing' and 'uncertainty' are logically linked, not just in quantum theory, but by the very meaning of these terms. Wherever there's uncertainty, it compromises knowing; and this inevitably brings with it at least a degree of ignorance. Conversely, wherever knowing is completely true, there can be no uncertainty.

How does this relate to advaita enquiry? What does it seek to discover through its use of the word 'consciousness'? When advaita speaks of 'consciousness', it surely means a knowing that is utterly uncompromised and thus beyond all mixture with any doubt or uncertainty.

Einstein sought the same ideal of true and uncompromised knowing. But quantum theory says that this is a false ideal which should be given up, because nature has set limits on our knowing. These limits are spelled out in quantum theory, through a calculated formula which goes by the name of 'Heisenberg's uncertainty principle'.

Thus, quantum physicists are telling us: 'You can go only so far and no further in your attempts at knowing things properly. You cannot go beyond the limits that our theory has specified. You must accept that it is futile to look any further.' It's thus that some physicists have even been speaking of a final end to physics, a complete 'Theory Of Everything' (a 'T.O.E.') which will not need any more fundamental questioning.

It's to this kind of attitude that Einstein objected. He greatly valued the search for truth; and spoke accordingly of 'Lessing's fine saying, that the search for truth is more precious than its possession' (quote taken from the end of The Fundaments of Theoretical Physics). I would interpret this saying to mean that when truth is made out to be a mere possession, it is not reality itself, but only some inadequate theory. As he put it in his later years: 'One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.'

Thus, Einstein would not accept the finality of any theoretical statement or picture. Instead, he insisted on pursuing the search for an uncompromised reality or truth that must be fully determined, beyond all our compromised statements and pictures which cannot ever determine it completely. For the inadequate determination of our statements, he insisted that the blame must be laid upon our limited and partial personalities, not on reality itself. For what we call 'reality' or 'truth' can't logically admit of any indeterminacy or any imperfection in itself.

So Einstein's position is that reality is of necessity complete in its determination. But our pictures aren't. Our pictures keep determining things imperfectly, through their inadequate descriptions that we keep on needing to improve. That is our way of acknowledging reality and seeking truth -- which we cannot honestly give up, so long as we keep picturing a world.

Asking for better pictures does not make us more like robots. Nor does it show up nature's happenings as more robotic or mechanical. In fact, it is quite to the contrary. As our pictures and descriptions get better developed and refined, they show up nature's determination as more finely intricate and more subtly delicate, beyond the coarse approximation and the gross crudity of our previous picturing. I say this in response to what you go on to say in your posting #40802:

Is Einstein's picture making everything predetermined? It seems that the QM people are basically avoiding the issue which religious people may attribute to the underlying Consciousness as Reality of existence. Whereas Einstein's deterministic position is emphatically saying NO and viewing all as a robot in entirety.

I rather agree with you here that quantum mechanics does rather avoid the issue of a subjective or spiritual consciousness, which has been long considered in our religious traditions. I'd say that Einstein considered it more deeply, as indicated in the following quote:

But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future to him is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages. [Albert Einstein, in Mein Weltbild]

At the end of your posting, you ask:

Also, how does Science's reduction of matter to a substratum called "energy" compare with our reduction of nama-rupa to Brahman? Are they equivalent or are we saying more or different?

What modern physics calls 'matter' has long been described by the traditional element called 'earth'. And what modern physics calls 'energy' has similarly been described by the traditional element 'water'. So when modern physics reduces matter to energy, this is the equivalent of 'earth' being reduced to 'water' (as Gargi does in her questioning of Yajnyavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, chapter 3).

Several more stages are then needed for Yajnyavalkya to reduce the five elements progressively to akshara, which is the changeless brahman or unchanging consciousness. And the reduction proceeds through akasha (the space-time continuum).

What Sanskrit calls 'nama-rupa' is equivalent to the notion of 'conceptual and perceptual picturing' in modern physics. 'Nama-rupa' is simply our conceptual and perceptual picturing of the observed world. And 'akasha' is the background of space and time, which continues through the picturing.

There is, however, a crucial difference between modern mechanical physics and traditional conceptions:

 

In the former, energy is just mechanical. It acts 'horizontally' from one object to another, in a structured world. This is an energy of interaction between objects, which are related into larger structures. Thus every object is conceived as a mechanical component, in larger structures of which it is a part.

But in the traditional conceptions, energy is more generally organic. It arises 'vertically' upwards from underlying consciousness, through feelings, thoughts and perceptions that show objects at the surface of the mind. As each object thus appears, it expresses the consciousness from which it has arisen. And the expression is immediately reflected down -- through perception, thought and feeling -- to be absorbed back into the consciousness from which it has arisen.

Accordingly, traditional conceptions are enabled to consider a living energy, which cannot be mechanically conceived. In Sanskrit, that living energy is of course called 'prana'. Thus conceived, it opens up the organic consideration of a living nature, as will be described in the next posting of this series.

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Sri Anandaji,

 

Your organic post (#3) is excellent.

 

Can not the " uncertainty " regarding the knowledge of " name and form "

be linked to the notion of " anirvachaniya " ? We cannot fully assess the

working of maya; at some point, we find a barrier we cannot cross, for

our questioning has NO explicable, complete closed-box answer.

 

The knowledge of the Self is said to be not a mechanical objective

knowledge; it is said to be That which cannot be known in such a

manner. The " certainity in knowledge " described in Advaita seems not

from the standpoint of a person describing the world of experience. It

seems a certainity that comes from a dissociation of personhood.

Individuality compromises the knowledge of advaita, and science seems

to link itself with this individual's knowledge.

 

Einstein, although he referred to religious knowledge and probably

understood its implications, seems to desire certainity in the

knowledge of maya/name-form existence. He wants to solve the puzzle

objectively. QM is definitely all mechanical in approach, yet its

conclusions are suggesting the limitations to mechanical knowledge: it

cannot cross the final barrier so long as it seeks an objective

explanation for everything. Its " uncertainity " raises the question of

whether indeed we should consider an organic starting point, a

resolution in Consciousness (a Self-operating/willing substratum,

ultimately beyond prediction).

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Shri thollmelukaalkizhu,

>

> In posting #40802 of Fri Jun 13, you asked, in relation to quantum

> theory:

>

> Is this " uncertainty " linkable to " consciousness " ?

>

> Yes 'knowing' and 'uncertainty' are logically linked, not just in

> quantum theory, but by the very meaning of these terms. Wherever there's

> uncertainty, it compromises knowing; and this inevitably brings with it

> at least a degree of ignorance. Conversely, wherever knowing is

> completely true, there can be no uncertainty.

>

> How does this relate to advaita enquiry? What does it seek to discover

> through its use of the word 'consciousness'? When advaita speaks of

> 'consciousness', it surely means a knowing that is utterly uncompromised

> and thus beyond all mixture with any doubt or uncertainty.

>

> Einstein sought the same ideal of true and uncompromised knowing. But

> quantum theory says that this is a false ideal which should be given up,

> because nature has set limits on our knowing. These limits are spelled

> out in quantum theory, through a calculated formula which goes by the

> name of 'Heisenberg's uncertainty principle'.

>

> Thus, quantum physicists are telling us: 'You can go only so far and no

> further in your attempts at knowing things properly. You cannot go

> beyond the limits that our theory has specified. You must accept that it

> is futile to look any further.' It's thus that some physicists have even

> been speaking of a final end to physics, a complete 'Theory Of

> Everything' (a 'T.O.E.') which will not need any more fundamental

> questioning.

>

> It's to this kind of attitude that Einstein objected. He greatly valued

> the search for truth; and spoke accordingly of 'Lessing's fine saying,

> that the search for truth is more precious than its possession' (quote

> taken from the end of The Fundaments of Theoretical Physics). I would

> interpret this saying to mean that when truth is made out to be a mere

> possession, it is not reality itself, but only some inadequate theory.

> As he put it in his later years: 'One thing I have learned in a long

> life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and

> childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.'

>

> Thus, Einstein would not accept the finality of any theoretical

> statement or picture. Instead, he insisted on pursuing the search for an

> uncompromised reality or truth that must be fully determined, beyond all

> our compromised statements and pictures which cannot ever determine it

> completely. For the inadequate determination of our statements, he

> insisted that the blame must be laid upon our limited and partial

> personalities, not on reality itself. For what we call 'reality' or

> 'truth' can't logically admit of any indeterminacy or any imperfection

> in itself.

>

> So Einstein's position is that reality is of necessity complete in its

> determination. But our pictures aren't. Our pictures keep determining

> things imperfectly, through their inadequate descriptions that we keep

> on needing to improve. That is our way of acknowledging reality and

> seeking truth -- which we cannot honestly give up, so long as we keep

> picturing a world.

>

> Asking for better pictures does not make us more like robots. Nor does

> it show up nature's happenings as more robotic or mechanical. In fact,

> it is quite to the contrary. As our pictures and descriptions get better

> developed and refined, they show up nature's determination as more

> finely intricate and more subtly delicate, beyond the coarse

> approximation and the gross crudity of our previous picturing. I say

> this in response to what you go on to say in your posting #40802:

>

> Is Einstein's picture making everything predetermined? It seems that the

> QM people are basically avoiding the issue which religious people may

> attribute to the underlying Consciousness as Reality of existence.

> Whereas Einstein's deterministic position is emphatically saying NO and

> viewing all as a robot in entirety.

>

> I rather agree with you here that quantum mechanics does rather avoid

> the issue of a subjective or spiritual consciousness, which has been

> long considered in our religious traditions. I'd say that Einstein

> considered it more deeply, as indicated in the following quote:

>

> But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The

> future to him is every whit as necessary and determined as the past.

> There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His

> religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony

> of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that,

> compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings

> is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding

> principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping

> himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question

> closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all

> ages. [Albert Einstein, in Mein Weltbild]

>

> At the end of your posting, you ask:

>

> Also, how does Science's reduction of matter to a substratum called

> " energy " compare with our reduction of nama-rupa to Brahman? Are they

> equivalent or are we saying more or different?

>

> What modern physics calls 'matter' has long been described by the

> traditional element called 'earth'. And what modern physics calls

> 'energy' has similarly been described by the traditional element

> 'water'. So when modern physics reduces matter to energy, this is the

> equivalent of 'earth' being reduced to 'water' (as Gargi does in her

> questioning of Yajnyavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, chapter 3).

>

> Several more stages are then needed for Yajnyavalkya to reduce the five

> elements progressively to akshara, which is the changeless brahman or

> unchanging consciousness. And the reduction proceeds through akasha (the

> space-time continuum).

>

> What Sanskrit calls 'nama-rupa' is equivalent to the notion of

> 'conceptual and perceptual picturing' in modern physics. 'Nama-rupa' is

> simply our conceptual and perceptual picturing of the observed world.

> And 'akasha' is the background of space and time, which continues

> through the picturing.

>

> There is, however, a crucial difference between modern mechanical

> physics and traditional conceptions:

>

> * In the former, energy is just mechanical. It acts 'horizontally'

> from one object to another, in a structured world. This is an energy of

> interaction between objects, which are related into larger structures.

> Thus every object is conceived as a mechanical component, in larger

> structures of which it is a part.

>

> * But in the traditional conceptions, energy is more generally

> organic. It arises 'vertically' upwards from underlying consciousness,

> through feelings, thoughts and perceptions that show objects at the

> surface of the mind. As each object thus appears, it expresses the

> consciousness from which it has arisen. And the expression is

> immediately reflected down -- through perception, thought and feeling --

> to be absorbed back into the consciousness from which it has arisen.

>

> Accordingly, traditional conceptions are enabled to consider a living

> energy, which cannot be mechanically conceived. In Sanskrit, that living

> energy is of course called 'prana'. Thus conceived, it opens up the

> organic consideration of a living nature, as will be described in the

> next posting of this series.

>

> Ananda

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri thollmelukaalkizhu,

In message #40839 of Fri Jun 20, you ask:

 

Can not the "uncertainty" regarding the knowledge of "name and form" be linked to the notion of "anirvachaniya"? We cannot fully assess the working of maya; at some point, we find a barrier we cannot cross, for our questioning has NO explicable, complete closed-box answer.

Yes indeed, the 'indeterminacy' of quantum mechanics is related to the 'anirvacaniya' of advaita enquiry. In both cases, it is recognized that we cannot fully determine the world, through our observations and descriptions of it.

But there is also a crucial difference. Quantum mechanics claims to have determined a final limit of indeterminacy which we cannot cross. Advaita enquiry admits of no such final limit. It can never admit a claim that a final limit of observation and description has been reached. If any such claim were made, further questions would have to be raised as to how this final limit has been determined.

Our observations and descriptions are very much a part of the world that advaita treats as indeterminate. So if we are to be logically consistent, we can't determine any limit or barrier that our observations and descriptions cannot cross. In some present state of technology, it may look as though some barrier can't be crossed, and many scientists may keep saying this vehemently. But any such looking and saying is a part of the indeterminate world which we cannot know for certain.

So, no matter how far we think we have come in our observation and description of the world (or in other words in the sophistication of our nama-rupa), it must remain illogical to admit that there is no further room for improvement of our observations and descriptions. So long as we continue to observe and to describe a world, it is logically imperative that we must keep on trying to observe and to describe things better.

It is here that the quantum mechanical approach is quite unacceptable to both Einstein and to advaita enquiry, so far as I understand it. We cannot rightly determine any uncrossable barrier to our observation and description of the world. Our observing and describing must stay always open to improvement, by reflecting back to an inner principle that may be found expressed in all that we observe and describe.

Einstein speaks of that inner principle as a superior 'intelligence'. Advaita speaks of it as 'consciousness'. In either case, it is acknowledged that truer and more certain knowledge is achieved by an inward detachment from outgoing personality.

Where then did Einstein differ from advaita enquiry? In the realm of spiritual reflection and religious faith, I would say that there may have been no basic difference. But in the realm of scientific technology, I'd point to a crucial difference in the conception and treatment of 'energy'.

In his scientific practice, Einstein conceived of energy mechanically, as expressed in the interaction of different objects. By contrast, advaita questioning has given rise to an organic approach to energy, as expressing consciousness in nature's ordered and meaningful and motivated functioning.

Ananda