A summary of the talk that I presented at the World Parliament.
Consciousness- Prior to the Big Bang
The Big Bang has increasingly been accepted as the cosmological theory for the formation of the universe. It started off somewhere around 13.8 billion years ago. on a sub atomic scale and expanded at a phenomenal rate. It has since been expanding at an ever increasing rate. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, and all manifestation, is incomprehensible even to the most advanced scientific investigating methods.
Is this universe a creation, a manifestation, an illusion? Is there any Hard Unchanging Reality? What role does consciousness have to play in the evolution of the universe? Or is consciousness the most fundamental phenomenon, that transcends time and space? This is the topic that we will dwell on in this presentation.
Scientists have for the first time separated a particle from one of its physical properties - creating a "quantum Cheshire Cat".
The phenomenon is named after the curious feline in Alice in Wonderland, who vanishes leaving only its grin.
Researchers took a beam of neutrons and separated them from their magnetic moment, like passengers and their baggage at airport security.
The researchers used an experimental set-up known as an interferometer, at the Institute Laue-Langevin (ILL) in Grenoble, France.
A neutron beam was passed through a silicon crystal, sending it down two different paths .
By applying filters and a technique known as "post-selection", they were able to detect the physical separation of the neutrons from their magnetic moment - as measured by the direction of their spin.
"The system behaves as if the neutrons go through one beam path, while their magnetic moment travels along the other," the researchers reported.
This raises issues serious issues about the 'measurement paradox'. Do all the attributes or measured parameters actually exist, or are they a subject matter of perception of the observer? The observer is in fact now proven to impact and modify the observed. In that case, can the observed have any objective validity if it is relative to the observer?
We are able to measure and record radiation and other residual traces of the Big Bang which lends credibility to it having occurred. It might be so too. But the larger question raised by modem quantum physics is that for it to have occurred, it had to have been observed by a conscious observer. What were the conditions, preceding that momentous event? Who pulled the trigger or pressed the button for the Big Bang to occur? Even after the Big Bang, proportionate amounts of matter and anti matter was so critically balanced to ensure the formation of the universe subsequently. This cannot be attributed to mere chance. There had to be an intelligence that planned and executed the plan to perfection. Creation of this material universe, is so tangible and perceptible, and yet needs the mediation of a Higgs field and a Higgs Boson to validate its tangibility. The perceiver is perceiving and yet cannot fathom the logistics of perception. Perception is a neurological phenomenon. An interaction between an object and the corresponding sensory modality. This interaction is transduced into an
electro-chemical signal, that's decoded by a cognitive apparatus, that also lends a meaning to the cognized data.
On one hand we have the Lockean “realist” account according to which perception involves the creation of an “inner reflection” of an independently existing external reality, and, on the other hand, a Kantean “anti-realist” concept of the “veil of perception.”Separation of matter and it's characteristics, attributes or qualities will be an important landmark in our understanding of the phenomenon of consciousness.
Consciousness is traditionally attributed to an emergent quality of neural networks. It is very intriguing to note that even a single celled creature like the amoeba is conscious and takes appropriate measures to feed and avoid any hostile milieu exterior. Does consciousness operate necessarily through mediation by a biological matrix? Could it be all pervading like a magnetic field with the organic or biological substrate serving as merely a receiver and or processor?
Could consciousness be merely a form of energy that manifests in different forms by modulating it's frequency and amplitude?
Can perception, be merely a play of consciousness, a phenomenon that simultaneously projects and comprehends the external world as a holographic reality? The separation and distinction of the objective world is because of the external appearances. If the elementary fundamental constituent is the ubiquitous atom, then the perceived difference of the external form may just be a program of the subject's perception. Rather than different particles carrying the information of matter and it's qualities, it could be that different loci in the brain might be activated to perceive matter and it's qualities simultaneously.
This brought a realisation that the effect is nothing more than the material cause and also that the effect is inseparable from the material cause. But even more important was the fact that the effect pre-existed in the cause. The idea of a bracelet could exist without the material ( gold) but the actual bracelet had to exist in the material cause- the lump of gold. If this were not so, it would have been possible to produce any object from any material. If something non existent could be manufactured from an existing material, then we could have produced water from a block of wood. In this case, the creative skills of the goldsmith cannot produce any new substance. His efforts only manifest the form of the material which was concealed in its pervious state. My line of thinking led me to the conceptual dichotomy in Indian philosophy of Asatkaryavada and Satkaryavada. In the former, the effect is a a totally new entity and does not reside in the material cause. The created universe, would then be a new entity and not have any causality as we understand.
An example could be of a gold bracelet. It would be considered a distinct new entity independent of the lump of gold. Satkaryavada believes that effect pre-existed in the cause. The bracelet is no different from the gold.
Following the latter ideology of Satkaryavada, is this change of form ( gold to bracelet) actual or apparent? The Sankhya school of thought believes the effect to be an actual transformation of the material cause. The bracelet was non existent before it was formed. A new form has been transformed into what it was not earlier. There is a real change ( Parinama). A new entity is born.
Does a change of form actually amount to a changed reality? Did the transformation into a bracelet change the material substance from which it was derived?
Perception of change of form certainly does not change reality.
The bracelet had a distinctive curve. What is the relationship of this curve with the bracelet? The curve cannot be appreciated without the bracelet. It is the attribute of the object. The curve cannot exist in the absence of the bracelet. The curve must have existed in the gold as a potential. The attribute of curvature of the bracelet has no independent existence apart from the bracelet just as the bracelet has no existence apart from the gold.
At the core of this thought process is the relationship of the quality to the object ( curvature to the bracelet) and of the object to its cause or substance. If the cause and the effect are distinct, but the cause produces the effect we would fail to explain the relation between an attribute and an object. Two distinct realities would then arise which would need a third phenomenon, that links the two.
A distinction in reality between the object and it's attribute is therefore logically indefensible as it would involve multiple realities. A change in form cannot be logically accepted as a real change unless there is a simultaneous change in the cause or the substance.
If the bracelet was to genuinely have a distinct identity from the gold, it would amount to violating ontology. The gold bracelet and the gold are no different from gold, but yet the form (bracelet) is different by having a specific, discrete form. The lump of gold and the bracelet are identical and yet different -Identical-in- difference. The two are identical in some respects, and yet different in other.
This hypothesis raises a paradox- X is simultaneously Y and non-Y.
Causation does not change reality. Therefore, change is just a perceptive warp of an underlying unchanging reality. Where does that leave us when we perceive an illusory object like a rainbow? We do perceive it but reasoning tells us that it is virtual. On similar grounds, change also is only apparent. It does not in any way change reality.
This leads to a very intresting philosophical construct - Vivartavaad or theory of apparent change.
The gold is subject to modification -( Vikara). The gold also is a form of some pre-existing substance.
All material objects are liable to modification, and so there must be a substance underlying them all which persists through all. It would be the material cause or the underlying reality behind this objective world.
Existence of the material world is revealed in its perception. Could this 'Existence' itself be the substance, the underlying reality of the material world? The material cause might just be an intangible superposition, a state of infinite possibilities- Brahman. The intangible foundation on which rests this phenomenal creation.
Quantum theory brings us to a rather paradoxical realisation. The observed cannot be said to exist in the absence of an observer. The observer cannot be called one if there is nothing to observe. So the observer and the observed must arise simultaneously and are totally inter dependent. They are bound together by the process of observation.
This trilogy of observer, observed and observation must arise simultaneously.
Monists like Spinoza adhere to the position that there is some neutral substance, of which both matter and mind are properties. The Advaita or non duality too believes in a non-numerical holistic all pervading unity that simultaneously manifests as the observer and the observed. In that case, the observer and the observed must be synchronous and then the Big Bang would be reduced to an epiphany, a realisation that I am simultaneously the creator and witness of this Universe.
Aham Brahmaasami.
Dr Deepak Ranade.
Consciousness- Prior to the Big Bang
The Big Bang has increasingly been accepted as the cosmological theory for the formation of the universe. It started off somewhere around 13.8 billion years ago. on a sub atomic scale and expanded at a phenomenal rate. It has since been expanding at an ever increasing rate. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, and all manifestation, is incomprehensible even to the most advanced scientific investigating methods.
Is this universe a creation, a manifestation, an illusion? Is there any Hard Unchanging Reality? What role does consciousness have to play in the evolution of the universe? Or is consciousness the most fundamental phenomenon, that transcends time and space? This is the topic that we will dwell on in this presentation.
Scientists have for the first time separated a particle from one of its physical properties - creating a "quantum Cheshire Cat".
The phenomenon is named after the curious feline in Alice in Wonderland, who vanishes leaving only its grin.
Researchers took a beam of neutrons and separated them from their magnetic moment, like passengers and their baggage at airport security.
The researchers used an experimental set-up known as an interferometer, at the Institute Laue-Langevin (ILL) in Grenoble, France.
A neutron beam was passed through a silicon crystal, sending it down two different paths .
By applying filters and a technique known as "post-selection", they were able to detect the physical separation of the neutrons from their magnetic moment - as measured by the direction of their spin.
"The system behaves as if the neutrons go through one beam path, while their magnetic moment travels along the other," the researchers reported.
This raises issues serious issues about the 'measurement paradox'. Do all the attributes or measured parameters actually exist, or are they a subject matter of perception of the observer? The observer is in fact now proven to impact and modify the observed. In that case, can the observed have any objective validity if it is relative to the observer?
We are able to measure and record radiation and other residual traces of the Big Bang which lends credibility to it having occurred. It might be so too. But the larger question raised by modem quantum physics is that for it to have occurred, it had to have been observed by a conscious observer. What were the conditions, preceding that momentous event? Who pulled the trigger or pressed the button for the Big Bang to occur? Even after the Big Bang, proportionate amounts of matter and anti matter was so critically balanced to ensure the formation of the universe subsequently. This cannot be attributed to mere chance. There had to be an intelligence that planned and executed the plan to perfection. Creation of this material universe, is so tangible and perceptible, and yet needs the mediation of a Higgs field and a Higgs Boson to validate its tangibility. The perceiver is perceiving and yet cannot fathom the logistics of perception. Perception is a neurological phenomenon. An interaction between an object and the corresponding sensory modality. This interaction is transduced into an
electro-chemical signal, that's decoded by a cognitive apparatus, that also lends a meaning to the cognized data.
On one hand we have the Lockean “realist” account according to which perception involves the creation of an “inner reflection” of an independently existing external reality, and, on the other hand, a Kantean “anti-realist” concept of the “veil of perception.”Separation of matter and it's characteristics, attributes or qualities will be an important landmark in our understanding of the phenomenon of consciousness.
Consciousness is traditionally attributed to an emergent quality of neural networks. It is very intriguing to note that even a single celled creature like the amoeba is conscious and takes appropriate measures to feed and avoid any hostile milieu exterior. Does consciousness operate necessarily through mediation by a biological matrix? Could it be all pervading like a magnetic field with the organic or biological substrate serving as merely a receiver and or processor?
Could consciousness be merely a form of energy that manifests in different forms by modulating it's frequency and amplitude?
Can perception, be merely a play of consciousness, a phenomenon that simultaneously projects and comprehends the external world as a holographic reality? The separation and distinction of the objective world is because of the external appearances. If the elementary fundamental constituent is the ubiquitous atom, then the perceived difference of the external form may just be a program of the subject's perception. Rather than different particles carrying the information of matter and it's qualities, it could be that different loci in the brain might be activated to perceive matter and it's qualities simultaneously.
This brought a realisation that the effect is nothing more than the material cause and also that the effect is inseparable from the material cause. But even more important was the fact that the effect pre-existed in the cause. The idea of a bracelet could exist without the material ( gold) but the actual bracelet had to exist in the material cause- the lump of gold. If this were not so, it would have been possible to produce any object from any material. If something non existent could be manufactured from an existing material, then we could have produced water from a block of wood. In this case, the creative skills of the goldsmith cannot produce any new substance. His efforts only manifest the form of the material which was concealed in its pervious state. My line of thinking led me to the conceptual dichotomy in Indian philosophy of Asatkaryavada and Satkaryavada. In the former, the effect is a a totally new entity and does not reside in the material cause. The created universe, would then be a new entity and not have any causality as we understand.
An example could be of a gold bracelet. It would be considered a distinct new entity independent of the lump of gold. Satkaryavada believes that effect pre-existed in the cause. The bracelet is no different from the gold.
Following the latter ideology of Satkaryavada, is this change of form ( gold to bracelet) actual or apparent? The Sankhya school of thought believes the effect to be an actual transformation of the material cause. The bracelet was non existent before it was formed. A new form has been transformed into what it was not earlier. There is a real change ( Parinama). A new entity is born.
Does a change of form actually amount to a changed reality? Did the transformation into a bracelet change the material substance from which it was derived?
Perception of change of form certainly does not change reality.
The bracelet had a distinctive curve. What is the relationship of this curve with the bracelet? The curve cannot be appreciated without the bracelet. It is the attribute of the object. The curve cannot exist in the absence of the bracelet. The curve must have existed in the gold as a potential. The attribute of curvature of the bracelet has no independent existence apart from the bracelet just as the bracelet has no existence apart from the gold.
At the core of this thought process is the relationship of the quality to the object ( curvature to the bracelet) and of the object to its cause or substance. If the cause and the effect are distinct, but the cause produces the effect we would fail to explain the relation between an attribute and an object. Two distinct realities would then arise which would need a third phenomenon, that links the two.
A distinction in reality between the object and it's attribute is therefore logically indefensible as it would involve multiple realities. A change in form cannot be logically accepted as a real change unless there is a simultaneous change in the cause or the substance.
If the bracelet was to genuinely have a distinct identity from the gold, it would amount to violating ontology. The gold bracelet and the gold are no different from gold, but yet the form (bracelet) is different by having a specific, discrete form. The lump of gold and the bracelet are identical and yet different -Identical-in- difference. The two are identical in some respects, and yet different in other.
This hypothesis raises a paradox- X is simultaneously Y and non-Y.
Causation does not change reality. Therefore, change is just a perceptive warp of an underlying unchanging reality. Where does that leave us when we perceive an illusory object like a rainbow? We do perceive it but reasoning tells us that it is virtual. On similar grounds, change also is only apparent. It does not in any way change reality.
This leads to a very intresting philosophical construct - Vivartavaad or theory of apparent change.
The gold is subject to modification -( Vikara). The gold also is a form of some pre-existing substance.
All material objects are liable to modification, and so there must be a substance underlying them all which persists through all. It would be the material cause or the underlying reality behind this objective world.
Existence of the material world is revealed in its perception. Could this 'Existence' itself be the substance, the underlying reality of the material world? The material cause might just be an intangible superposition, a state of infinite possibilities- Brahman. The intangible foundation on which rests this phenomenal creation.
Quantum theory brings us to a rather paradoxical realisation. The observed cannot be said to exist in the absence of an observer. The observer cannot be called one if there is nothing to observe. So the observer and the observed must arise simultaneously and are totally inter dependent. They are bound together by the process of observation.
This trilogy of observer, observed and observation must arise simultaneously.
Monists like Spinoza adhere to the position that there is some neutral substance, of which both matter and mind are properties. The Advaita or non duality too believes in a non-numerical holistic all pervading unity that simultaneously manifests as the observer and the observed. In that case, the observer and the observed must be synchronous and then the Big Bang would be reduced to an epiphany, a realisation that I am simultaneously the creator and witness of this Universe.
Aham Brahmaasami.
Dr Deepak Ranade.
No comments:
Post a Comment