Savitri Era Learning Forum: Nobody knows what is reality; fear of the fundamental question, life and death

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Dear Kashyapji,

From a conventional physicist's point of view, I can appreciate your arguments and perspective. However, you have addressed none of the key issues as raised by me viz

I) Signs as assigned to gravitational and mass energies to represent their opposing effects Vs ontological existences of energies.

ii) Cosmological models for the creation of the universe based upon quantum vacuum/BB/cosmic inflation taking into account only 4% of the energy of the universe.

iii) Mechanical motions, light, heat representing the effects of energy which are detectable/sensible by instruments but per se these effects not being energy. The cause behind these effects being the ontological existence of energy is neither positive nor negative. In view of this, corresponding to vast infinite energy of the observable universe, there should be vast infinite energy at the primordial stage also. There is also the possibility that this vast infinite energy st the primordial stage might not be in the form, as is known to the current science. It is on account of this that current cosmology starts with zero known physical energy. But start of universe with the zero energy has a lot of logical inconsistencies and explanatory gaps, many of which mentioned by me but no solution forthcoming.

I, further, recognize your point of view that conventional physics is either incapable or not interested in addressing the above issues. However, will this very aspect of Physics make the issues as raised as invalid? Could you please point out in a specific manner where is the flaw in my arguments while raising these issues?

As I had indicated in my previous messages also that the Astral, Causal realms of nature and cosmic consciousness can't be studied and developed as some objective scientific hypothesis or theories simply due to the reasons that ontology of these realms is not detectable by the objective scientific methodology as used by the contemporary. Science.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/37882954af1d44c5a3c959f7b97a8df9%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu

Dear Vinod,

Rest assured, I am not ignoring the questions raised by you. But about ontological issues, I have to repeat as before, physicists cannot revise their models, based on someone’s ontological ideas. As it is clear from the discussions on this blog, nobody knows what is reality and hence physicists have to leave that issue to philosophers. Only thing physicists can demand is mathematical consistency and agreement with experimental data. For most physicists the matter ends there.

Starting from elementary mechanics (Newton’s laws) energy is defined in a unique way. I understand you took some physics courses a number of years back. You may want to review them or you may want to talk to a physics professor in a nearby college. If we were close by I would be glad to explain it by writing on a chalkboard. On e-mail it is not possible. In mechanics you start with definition of force (Newton’s laws) then define work and then energy as a body’s capacity to do work. This is then extended consistently to heat, light, electricity-magnetism and finally to atoms and sub nuclear matter. Then Newton’s laws are consistently revised to special and general relativity. As we discussed before, signs of energy come out naturally in a consistent way. Gravity is attractive. So negative potential energy is natural and no problem. If energy due to motion, kinetic energy 0.5 mv^2 or mass energy mc^2 come out negative, that will be big disaster!!

“Mechanical motions, light, heat representing the effects of energy which are detectable/sensible by instruments but per se these effects not being energy.”

Energy is associated with each object and it is exchanged between bodies like exchanging money between two persons. One person loses money in his bank (negative effect), the other person gains money (positive effect, increase in bank balance). There is no distinction between effect and energy. Thus starting with zero total energy is not a problem, once you agree that energy can be positive and negative. You have to get rid of this idea in your mind that energy is something you hold in your hand! This may be the flaw in the argument.

Although there is no direct experimental evidence for dark matter and dark energy, there are plenty of indirect evidences. I cannot go through all of that in an e-mail. If you have time and interest you may want to read Wikipedia Articles.

Thus the situation is not as bad as you think. It is not that people are ignoring 96% of energy of the universe. After all subject like physics attracts plenty of intelligent people, although not much money is available!! They are constantly looking for a consistent model of universe.

As I said last time, from your daily life you have to admit success of some 400 years of physics (science in general).This is not to say that other things like religion, philosophy etc. are not important!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

Vasavada, Kashyap V

Aug 14, 2017

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Perhaps, your queries related to science have similar answers as those of my queries related to OOO-God theory. I asked few questions: what color OOO God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato. How do you derive 18 elementary particles from 5 Tanmātras? Or where from God gets infinite amount of energy? Or who created God?

Your answer was that we are not at the level of OOO God, so we cannot answer or God does not tell us. Similar answer can be given from science that we need further research on dark matter/energy, etc, and on the answers of “why” and “where from”.

Why are there spontaneous random fluctuations? Why Nature behaves stochastically? Where from do the virtual particles get energies and how? In my view, further research is needed as science is in infancy. OOO-God theory has been over 6000 years at the least, but do you have answers of my queries? No! So why do you expect science will have all the answers in just few hundred year?

The eDAM framework is based on whatever is available in science currently. At present time, BB from “nothing”/vacuum (no material entities and zero total energy) is the best available model although it has many problems. If, in future, there is a better model then the eDAM will be updated accordingly. The eDAM is not rigid like OOO God theory; it evolves as science evolves.

I guess, there are two groups in this forum: (1) OOO God theory group and (2) science/eDAM group; we should further research as we like.

Kind regards,

Rām

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

August 13, 2017

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/471107271.483668.1502552454219%40mail.yahoo.com

Dear Avtar,

Thanks.

Q: Where does the “positive expansive energy” come from? If you have any article please email me.

I am currently in the process of reading your articles.

Thanks for the articles and links. I need to understand your framework first so please help me. The following quotes are from (Singh, 2017). So far, I have the following queries:

[1]. “What changes occur in the physical states of the brain a moment before and a moment after death that lead to the cessation of the biological consciousness? […] the brain malfunctions or breaks down, such as during a coma or death, the mind stops working ceasing the conscious experiences.”

Does this imply a brain is necessary for a conscious experience and if there is no brain, there is no conscious experience?

[2]. “The fact that every location in space and every moment of time in the universe is aware of the universal laws points to the existence of awareness of a universal mind or consciousness.”

Does this contradicts the above [1] in the sense brain is not necessary if “universal consciousness” also mean experiences and experiencer (such as the “self” in human being)? It seems that we need to define the terms before using them; otherwise, confusion will occur. What is “consciousness’ and what is the difference between “universal consciousness” and “biological consciousness”?

[3] “Furthermore, the presence of conscious beings and the prevailing cosmic order are not possible in a universe that is not conscious.”

Do you mean all living and non-living systems are conscious (as in panpsychism)?

You seem to reject materialism, so what is your metaphysics, idealism/Advaita, ‘interactive substance dualism’/‘dualistic Sānkhya’, or dual-aspect monism?

Kind regards,

Rām

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

On Sunday, 13 August 2017 11:43 AM, Asingh2384 wrote:

Dear Kashyap/Vinod/Ram:

The root cause of the missing 96% (dark energy/dark matter) from the current standard model Big Bang cosmology is complete ignorance of the positive expansive anti-gravitational energy of the universe. Because of this fundamental deficiency, Einstein proposed a fudge factor Cosmological Constant to fix the issue, and even today it remains as the only viable explanation of dark energy causing the observed accelerated expansion of the universe.

What I have tried to show that adding to relativity the missing physics of spontaneous mass/energy conversion observed in wave/particle complimentarity and mass/energy equivalence principle, solves this problem and provides a physical basis for Dark Energy or cosmological constant eliminating the artificial fudge factor as well as paradoxes/inconsistencies of physics and cosmology (GR, QM, standard model etc). Such an integrated approach predicts the observed expansion of the universe without the paradoxes of the Big Bang standard model and QM.

Expansive energy cannot be artificially created from the mis-conceived negative gravitational energy. Gravitational energy could only cause an inward contracting collapse or crunch such as in a black hole but could not lead to the observed expansion of the universe. Positive expansion energy is required to create or store a gravitational potential energy (termed negative). Negative GPE has no existence of its own without the positive expansive energy. This fundamental misconception has led to various weird concepts such as inflation, multiple universes, fine tuning, dark energy, dark matter, big bang, and unexplained weirdness of QM including the collapse of the wave function, etc.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/209429014.794240.1502641774265%40mail.yahoo.com

Dear Ram and All:

The following statement in your e-mail is fundamentally incorrect:

“The positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.”

The above is incorrect because if it were true then the gravitational pull would cause an instantaneous collapse/crunch of the universe mass in galaxies and stars. Further, the observed universe is observed to be expanding (Hubble Expansion) at an accelerating rate due to the anti-gravity or dark energy. The faraway galaxies are observed to be moving away at almost the speed of light exhibiting tremendous positive kinetic energy showing no sign of negative energy or pull of gravity.

Just as a net positive energy is needed to launch a rocket into space against gravity, a net positive expansive energy is needed to cause the observed accelerated expansion of the universe to overcome gravitational pull of the masses in the universe.

Another evidence of the incorrectness of the Zero total energy of the universe is that the standard Big Bang model fails to predict 96% of the universe consisting of dark energy and dark matter. This 96% error in the Big Bang model is the direct result of the ignorance of the positive anti-gravity or dark energy.

In summary, the observed continued net accelerating Hubble expansion of the massive universe is evidence of its net positive energy. A universe consisting only of matter and negative gravitational energy would crunch and collapse into a black hole in no time.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

August 11, 2017

Dear Ram:

Standard Big Bang model (BBM) assumption of the net zero energy of the universe is fundamentally wrong as evidenced by the missing 96% (dark energy and dark matter) universe that the standard model fails to predict. Further, the following unresolvable inconsistencies and paradoxes of the BBM (including GR and QM) destroy its credibility as a universal theory:

1. Quantum gravity?

2. Parallel universes (undermines the unique set of universal laws that is the foundation of physics)?

3. The so-called quantum ZPF (Zero-point Field) is 120 orders of magnitude off (higher) than the observed energy in the empty space (cosmological constant). (Quantum ZPF is not the real zero point of the universe as claimed)?

4. Observer or measurement paradox (undermines credibility of all quantum observations)?

5. Black hole singularity (undermines GR predictions at the beginning of the universe)?

6. Superluminous (V>C) inflation (violates relativity?

7. Photon Zero mass in standard model but positive finite energy/momentum violate relativity and equivalence of mass-energy and momentum laws?

8. Well-established relativity of space-time negates an absolute instant of time zero? Clock either ticks continuously or stops; in either case it never reads time = 0. Zero time or beginning has no physical basis?

9. BBM’s 4% success rate of universe prediction kills the credibility of the standard model as a universal theory?

Hence, all the arguments using standard BBM model to explain consciousness, Prakriti, Brahma, nothingness, creation, or any physical/spiritual concepts etc have no more than 4% credibility on a universal basis. If you or I score 4% on our physics exam, it would be regarded as a serious failure.

Unfortunately this the sorry state of the BBM standard model. However, these deficiencies can be fixed via integrating the missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion or equivalence into relativity theory that also explains inner workings of QM as well as resolve many of the current paradoxes of physics and cosmology.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

August 10, 2017

...

Dear Vinod,

Now as I said, I am talking about physical models of origin of universe for which there is majority consensus; surely not 100 percent! Nothing in science is 100 percent nor should it be. Scientists should be willing to drop their favorite model at the drop of a hat, when evidence is pointing against it. [...]

If you believe in quantum physics, you have to believe in uncertainty principle. There is no choice! You cannot pick and choose in science. The whole science comes as a package! In a way this question is similar to the debate about evolution and creationism. Creationists would argue that if the complete blueprint of how to design life is known to God for example, it should not take 4 Billion years of trial and error to produce human beings. Scientists, even believers, would say that is how the laws of nature operate.

The universe in the beginning had minimum entropy. It has been increasing ever since then. If there is a big crunch and start over, there will have to be some mechanism to reduce the entropy.

Again, all of this is consistent with the laws of physics as of today. They may look weird from our everyday experience. But we should not expect that universe should be consistent with what a little human being can rationalize from his/her everyday experience!!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

August 11, 2017

...

Dear Paul,

I assume mechanism, and the knowledge that all machine dreams/computations are emulated in the arithmetical reality... I interpret the contradiction as typo error, joke, or attempt to remind never taking anything sacred literally.

I do not believe in the "paranormal", given that when a psychologist succeeds in verifying a parapsychological experience, like it happened for the luicid dream, then "para" is thrown away.

I am a skeptical. I am a Platonist, I do not believe in what I see. I trust the normal in principle, but beware of the domain involved. "Para" is a sociological term. It is an artificial wall.

I don't believe in the normal physical things already. It is easier to explain the illusion of the moon to a person, than to explain the illusion of person to the moon...

My real interest has always been the mind-body problem, and the partial solution I saw in molecular genetics was already in elementary arithmetic. It is Gödel theorem which decides me to do mathematics.

To be sure, as a professional I am agnostic, here I assume and behave like if I was a mechanist believer (to avoid conditional jargon). [...]

For me the problem begun when theology was kept away from science. That has helped only bad faith. Both in the Eastern and Western world, you see the honest inquirers, and those with hidden agenda (fame, money, notoriety, ...). When liars get the power, as they often do, honesty is an handicap, even if it is the only real power in the long run.

There is also a natural fear with respect to the fundamental question, life and death. And who we are.

When I asked my father what is truth, he told me that it was what the human fears the most. [...]

Many salvia reports describe en encounter with a divine entity definitely felt as feminine.

And I like to joke on the macho greeks for which odd numbers are male and even numbers are female, and for who 1 is, of course, the Big One, ... I like to joke when pointing that today we know that the big 1 is in between the two most terrible female of Platonia: the number 0 (death, annihilation) and the number 2 (life, couple, duplication, creation, the indefinite dyad of the Pythagoreans).

But take this with a grain of salt, if that was needed to be made precise.

Best wishes,

Bruno

...

Dear Siegfried,

The hallmark of subjective experience is that as far as we can tell it arises from entirely proximal dynamic relations. That is to say we have no subjective experience of the dynamic relations that instantiate hydrogen fusion in the sun that send photons to earth. We have no subjective experience relating to the life of the photon. In fact we have no subjective experience that we can attribute directly to events in the retina. Our experiences are composed of elements that have to be inferred later - like colour, which only arises after the cortex has compared inputs over time from allover the retina.

So no subject can ever have any evidence of the experience of some other type of subject - because it relates to distal events. That is really the root of our problems. Whether anything other than each of the subjects in my brain (however many) that reports seeing a screen experiences anything other than the screen the ‘mes’ are seeing is an unanswerable question. I personally think it is fair to reject solipsism of any sort and take the parsimonious position that all individual dynamic units are subjects. So I am a sort of panexperientialist. This position is parsimonious because otherwise you have to propose some distinguishing rule.

But all we can really usefully study is the nature of the dynamic individual unit that has the sort of experience that we discuss as belonging to a ‘me’. It would be unparsimonious and lead to over determinism if we posited such an experience both very locally in a brain and smeared out in a whole person. So we ought to choose between the two.

We have absolutely nonscientific motivation for smearing out experience in a whole human body. Most of the human body has nothing to do with the experiences we talk about. My bone marrow making red cells is irrelevant. My heart contracting is irrelevant. They are no more relevant than the cushion I sit on or my spectacles or the blind man’s stick or Otto’s notebook or the whole world. The extended mind people have blown the cover of the embodied cognition people by pointing out that the body is irrelevant.

I do not think third and first person aspects are isomorphic. I have argued with people like Nick Shea about this in some detail. There are redundancies in both directions. However, in loose terms, which I think is what you mean, I see no reason to doubt some sort of systematic matching relation - how would experience be useful if not? I think talk of larger dimensionality risks wandering off into fairyland a bit. And this is where I think locality comes in. If subjective experience is a first person take on dynamics that actually do something useful in our lives, like survival, then in order to make sense of physics the dynamics need to obey locality in a broad sense but a sufficiently precise sense to rule out arbitrary smearing across a few extra dimensions.

If subjective experience does not obey locality the whole of physics crashes because every test of physics includes a final experiential step. if you throw away the rules for that step you throw them away for everything. Again it is like the rule that for any syllogism with conflicting premises all conclusions are valid. Logic crashes.

Neuroscientists are quite good at stimulating individual points in the brain and getting rich experiences. They cannot do it very often because the only ethical time is when someone is having epilepsy surgery. There have been instances when repeated stimulate of the same spot has given rise to repeated similar experiences - so yes it has been done.

I agree that there are problems with questions about whether an experience in one brain is ‘the same’ as that in another. That goes back to the earlier issue about never accessing other experiences. Wittgenstein was right (for the wrong reasons) to say there is no valid answer. And if there are 1000000 experiences at the same time in a brain we cannot know if they are ‘the same’. Moreover, we would not particularly expect them to be if each is dealing with s lightly different level of abstraction or field of attention. Philosophers can say they all have the same ‘content’ but that is because they define ‘content’ as being what the experience is ‘about’. If I look at a tomato all the experiences in my head are of looking at a tomato. But they may be wildly different in terms of the local dynamics involved. And despite Wittgenstein we could reasonably say that it is very unlikely that there could even hypothetically ‘seem’ the same. one might have ten times as many bits of information as another.

I cannot see any need to postulate orthogonal worlds. All we need is perfectly ordinary physics - because ordinary physics always includes an experience of our type and an otherwise very reliable way of linking up dynamic relations.

Parsimony gets to look more and more important as you get older. Life is short.

Best wishes

Edwards, Jonathan

August 14, 2017

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CD272211-BDFE-4DE8-BAA2-82FB2B5C6514%40ucl.ac.uk

...

Fifth International Conference

Science and Scientist - 2017

August 18—19, 2017

Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017