June 14, 2017

Thirst, Pepsi, and the poppy-stuffed satin pillow

Kashyap, in the US, it was discovered by Pepsi Co in the 1970’s that, in blind taste tests, Americans overwhelmingly preferred the taste of Pepsi over Coke. So they created a multi-million dollar TV campaign to give the news to the people and expected then to become the #1 seller. It didn’t work

Even though it is true that technically, statistically, Pepsi tastes better, we American’s still prefer Coke for an illogical and subconscious reason:  IT WAS FIRST

The first interpretation of quantum mechanics was the Copenhagen interpretation, which supposes wave particle duality. It’s more popular as a result, even to the point where many people speak of it as being implicit in the raw math of quantum mechanics itself. It is NOT implicit in the raw math.

Then came Everett. He invented the many worlds interpretation. It is equally obedient to the experimental results and to the raw math of QM. It is less popular because it was not first. It is the second in time and coincidentally also the second in popularity (awareness).  

Then came Bohm’s rigorous mathematical development of de Broglie’s non-rigorous idea. It is equally adherent to the math of QM and to experimental results. It was the third in time and coincidentally also the third in popularity (awareness).

In QM 101 scientists are taught the Copenhagen interpretation and not Bohm’s. This is in NO way because it is more logical or because it adheres better to the math of QM or to experiment.

PhD’s in physics generally have never really critically thought about Bohm’s interpretation, as it takes a little time to get as familiar with it as Jack Sarfatti is. He worked directly with Bohm and was also a close friend of Richard Feynman. He is no lightweight and not an average level physicist. His MIT background and the associations with some of the greats and some of his own novel insights make Jack on of the living titans of physics today.

But it’s difficult for him to have a rigorous discussion with some of us in this group who have not invested a few months into critically thinking about Bohm’s view, which rejects wave-particle duality.

At least I can say that the mathematicians and physicists here at Quantum Gravity Research recognize that the Bohm/Sarfatti view is more logical and seems more physically realistic.

Klee Irwin
June 10, 2017

Re: Jack Sarfatti, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Sutherland's latest paper on entanglement as local retrocausality.
Yes, Ruth is a good person who might have a chance to spend some time with. Thanks for this note. But one clarification: do universities don't teach ...
10 Jun by Klee Irwin - 12 posts - 6 authors

We all experience thirst. You may define it as the creepy feeling we have when we are 
dehydrated. That definition is unsatisfactory because we are using another undefined term to describe "thirst". The description is not like identifying a table or a house that are accessible to our senses. However, we could meaningfully use the word "thirst" and other words such as "love", "empathy" etc in our discourses. 

      The properties associated with elementary particles is also not within the ken of our experience. However, they could be used in meaningful ways to deduce the properties displayed by these particles in carefully designed experiments. Do we really define and identify "mass", "field", "charge" or "charm"? Yet, they are routinely 
used in discourses. 

      Therefore, even if something cannot be identified, it appears to 
me that the referencing term could be used meaningfully. 

> 3. People have nothing to gain by sitting around pretending to engage in 
> reasoned discourse about that which cannot be defined, identified, or 
> referenced. 

      Progress of human understanding has come about by idle discourse on everything under the sun, those that can be identified and described and those that cannot be identified or put in ordinary language. 

      This comment is not meant to convey that I am with or against the concepts such as existence of God or afterlife. It is not a statement of my convictions. My only intention is to support discourse of all sorts. 

Kind regards, 


June 14, 2017

Prof. M.R.N. Murthy 
Molecular Biophysics Unit 
Indian Institute of Science 
Bangalore 560 012 

 To view this discussion on the web visit 

Dear George and Paul,
Thanks for the comments. I essentially agree with you. My main point was that science cannot and should not give up the methods which have been successful for some 500 years. Apparently, Jack Sarfatti thinks that he can understand cosmic mind while extending Bohm-Sutherland’s model to living systems. I am not sure. But I do not wish to criticize that model without studying it. So, as  far as I can see ,these are two cultures and most of us do not know how to combine them!

Best Regards.
June 14, 2017

To "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

1) Knowledge acquisition presupposes curiosity, humility, and methodological integrity.
2) Position and prestige shouldn't stand in the way of clear thinking and perceiving.
3) Science and Mathematics need not elbow out alternative means of understanding life and the world.
4) Geographical divide of knowledge systems need to be bridged and integrated through increased dialogue.
5) Ignoring robust contributions of the past debilitates present discourse and hence suggestions should be examined with alacrity.
6) Narcissism, oneupmanship, or arrogance have no place in the realm of quest for truth and even long titles can be a hindrance.
7) Avoiding verbosity, hijacking of discussion, and displaying pedantry is essential for focussed examination of issues for finding solution.
8) Expressing lack of competence in areas under discussion should be a norm instead of offering impressionistic responses.

A fine link is at:

Thanks and all the best.
June 14, 2017
Tusar Nath Mohapatra

Thanks for the differentiation, Bruno. I'm still trying to get the full sense of your "mechanism." Obviously you mean something other than the "clockwork universe" that was a common image of early materialism. Yet the clock having been established as an archetypal image of mechanism, perhaps your special use of the term may be stretching it too far from the normal usage among English speakers. That is, the image you intend for it isn't the
standard one in English.

Maybe I'm just dense, but have you considered other words for your concept? I might understand a different word for it better. When you say "an invariant for some ... transformation," are you invoking a symmetry?

Whit Blauvelt 
June 14, 2017

Let me put by foundational difference with Jo in hopefully simpler terms:

Causality is a concept we gain from the experience of our own capacity to cause. We would have no concept if we had no capacity. Similary we'd have no concept of thirst if this were not our common experience, along with the quenching of it.

To warp the notion of causality, draw it out, and weave from it a basket of reality in which we -- the conscious selves who derived the concept in the course of our active experiments from birth onwards in causing events -- have no such capacity, is perverse. The very possession of the concept is proof of the capacity. If there were nothing we could cause, and yet causality were true, it would make not the slightest difference to us.

Also, we'd have no capacity to experiment. Science itself would utterly fail.


Wired has picked up a fine article from Quanta on the development of a mathematics which supports real causality at the level of the self:

It also gives a decent background on some of the things Jo and I have been discussing here.

June 14, 2017

But what's the point of sinking into the poppy-stuffed satin pillow of Eastern mysticism while picking on Jack? For what worthwhile problem is this a method of solution?

Think about it.
Chris Langan
June 14, 2017

Hi Chris,

      Fortunately I never had the problem of "anti-intellectual platitudes drilled into my head" by my gurus, I was partly raised in the Asian philosophical tradition. I suppose there are many variations and levels of Asian philosophical traditions, maybe some so-called ones are actually anti-intellectual, thankfully not the ones I'm more familiar with. However there is an understanding in our tradition that the Supreme Absolute Truth or Reality is not "captured" or contained per se by one's intellect. But that that Supreme truth is super fundamental and subjective. But that's not being anti-intellectual, that's what I'd define as not using the intellect for speculative exploitation.

     That's not to say there is no definition, identity or conception of the Supreme Truth. The wise man sees that Truth in everything, while in contrast the ordinary person sees everything in separation from the whole. The sage sees everything in connection to the whole, as parts of the whole, and sees the true relation. That's the beginning of transcendental vision. This is the vision given by the Guru to one who is truly inquisitive to find the answer to your question; "What is it that we think we're trying to define, express or conceptualize here?" The topmost Vedic philosophy teaches us that we cannot force that ultimate reality into our intellect or brains. We are miniscule conscious sparks of that reality, and the definition, identity and conception of that Absolute will come to us through humility in following an actual Guru. This is not just Eastern, but "Western" religious teaching of Christianity also. Jesus Christ was the perfect Guru.

Regards, Eric Reyes
June 14, 2017

No comments:

Post a Comment