Dear Kashyap ji,
Thanks for your interest.
1. You have raised an important issue. Susskind argues that Bell’s inequality is based on the classical logic; QM is based on quantum logic; so with or without experiments, Bell’s inequality will be violated. Therefore, we need to derive Bell's like inequality based on the quantum-logic. The classical logic and quantum logic are of different kinds; it is a category mistake to use the former for investigating the latter. Do we have a violation of Bell’s inequality in CM? The answer is No. So far, QM experiments are based on classical logic; so it obvious they will fail Bell’s inequality. Therefore, I suggest that QM experiments should be based on quantum logic to test QM.
For testing the inseparability of mental and physical aspects in the eDAM (extended dual-aspect monism), please see Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015g).
For testing hypothesis related to OBEs in the atheist and theist versions of the eDAM, I proposed 3 experiments; perhaps you might have seen them in my one of the previous emails.
2. ('t Hooft, 2015) proposes that QM is a tool, rather than theory of physics. I follow him. It is possible to derive MIR-objectivity from MDR-subjectivity and vice-versa. [MIR: mind-independent reality; MDR: mind-dependent reality]. If you have time and patience to read, I can email you the relevant sections of my e-book (Vimal, 2017) “Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in extended Dual-Aspect Monism: Bringing Relativity and QM closer”, which is under preparation.
June 17, 2017
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
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
To view this discussion on the web visit
Like you, I am convinced (on evolutionary grounds) that the action that our consciousness must perform for a Darwinian account of its organisation has to be a free choice. I am also convinced that the only possibility for identifying that action as a necessary physical process is as the aspect of nature that randomly selects the outcome of a quantum measurement from the range of possible alternatives (weighted by qualia according to the Born rule). The fact that this choice is free is what makes the outcome random in my opinion (the qualia making some options more salient than others account for the probabilities).
It seems to me that Jo would rather account for the randomness in QM (which he appears to accept as irreducible) in terms of a fundamental law of randomness rather than the action of consciousnesses as in my theory. However, in doing so he has removed all possibility of a conscious free choice playing a role in physics (and is I think rightly reluctant to posit any influences beyond what physics requires). You will have difficulty convincing him otherwise.
Nevertheless, the fact that where randomness in other systems has been accounted for (e.g. a dice), it has always been the result of complex processes and unknown initial conditions, rather than fundamental laws, is I think supportive of my position. Hence there is yet hope for a scientifically consistent account of human consciousness in which we do have a form of free will.
June 17, 2017
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Our intuitive conception of causality is clearly problematic, and a theory of indivisibles like the Monadology or quantum theory brings that to light. Leibniz denies that anything causes anything, although people may overinterpret that - he says that everything just progresses in harmony. I suspect qm is the same. However, Leibniz also has a concept of monadic souls having choice - on this you are closer to him than l.
In 1676 Spinoza and Leibniz met. For Spinoza there were no individuals, just one Nature, and 'freedom of choice' was an illusion. Leibniz was sure there must be individuals, to explain points of view. They had to be free because the Bible said so. However, as Russell complained, in Leibniz's schema each soul can only ever have one choice, to be that soul at creation; if Socrates, to have decided from the outset to take the hemlock. Multiple choices would mean multiple souls. In a sense my schema is to bite that bullet.
This problem is the subject of a paper I presented at the International Leibniz Conference last year. It is on my website (google UCL and Jonathan Edwards). What Leibniz correctly identifies is that indivisible units must be end-entailing or show telicity. They might be regarded as having a 'purpose', although this raises questions. However, there does not seem to be any way that souls could choose in the intuitive sense of 'consciously choosing' because the choice must occur when the soul is created. This might sound like getting into abstruse theology, but it is actually hard logic and, if that ends up theology, so be it.
The only way I can make sense of individual telicity is to say that each soul, or quantised action is god's choice. The purpose is the god's purpose, which we are working out. I use god with a small g to mean the totality of sufficient reasons, something that physics cannot do without. The really interesting thing is that Leibniz shows that this totality must have 'an end in mind' for entirely logical reasons.
What I think this means for qm is that the 'choice of measurement' is not separate from the choice of an actual action occurring. It is one indivisible event. Yet it seems to involve something extraneous in the form of an observer. I think this was an error by Bohr. I think what we see is the totality of reasons choosing to arrange within the universe a whole action, complete with 'catcher' as well as 'pitcher'. That is where things get close to retrocausality. In the vast majority of qm experiments the observer never chose the mode of measurement anyway - it was probably written in the grant application by her boss.
June 17, 2017
From: "Edwards, Jonathan"
To view this discussion on the web visit
Now about the more serious questions. The answers may depend on whether you are talking to a philosopher or a physicist. Methods and explanations in physics have become more and more abstract over the centuries and particularly during the last 100 years or so. Previously people were using only contact mechanical forces, push and pull by something you can see e.g. your hands, springs, hammers etc.
When Newton gave his theory of gravity, mechanical push and pulls disappeared. When Maxwell proposed electromagnetic waves, they became hard to visualize. These are waves which do not require any material medium. What is vibrating?! Finally, in modern physics, during last 100 years or so it became totally impossible to visualize in terms of our everyday life models. Physicists used mathematics and rationalized that our languages and intuitions are based on our experiences in everyday life. We just do not have any experience of living in atomic world or high velocity and high gravity world. In other words, physicists would say, we live in a classical world! So they gave up the idea of intuitively understanding and expressing in terms of human languages. The theories became weirder in terms of our everyday life. Curvature of space-time, dependence of time on motion of observer, wave-particle duality etc. were very reluctantly accepted. There were strong debates for years in disbelief.
In my article posted on this website, I have mentioned that according to the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and Bohr, the new ideas were unbelievable, irrational and weird but they were natural in eastern philosophy!! Anyway the new methods and concepts had great success. Just look at your life day to day. How many gadgets and results of scientific methods you are using? Anybody is welcome to modify existing theoretical framework. There should not be any censorship. But the fact of the matter is that people have not been able to reproduce success of the existing framework by their hypothesis. It is not enough to say that I cannot visualize this, so it must be wrong! When you propose an alternative framework to existing theoretical framework, it has to reproduce all the successes of previous framework, and then some more.
Science does thrive on controversies and there are controversies all the time. But at some point, people have to admit that this works and this does not work! So some of the questions, you are asking, have no scientific answers. Philosophers are welcome to speculate. But they will have to give alternative models for all the successful theories. In science, you cannot pick and choose! Personally I have respect for the field of philosophy. But that does not help in our job to study nature, make models to explain existing data and predict results of future experiments. Mathematics has worked immensely. Why mathematics works when human languages fail, is a deep philosophical problem. I believe, no one has an answer for that.
Jun 19, 2017
[PDF] Comparative view of Education: On the light of Swami Vivekananda and Rishi Aravinda
S Gupta - International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary …, 2017
... Sri Aurobindo's (1956) concept of 'education' is not only acquiring information, but “the acquiring of various kinds of information'', he points out, “is only one and not the chief of the means and necessities of education: its central aim is the building of the powers of the human mind ...
[PDF] INCORPORATING RELIGION WHEN TEACHING CULTURAL DIVERSITY ISSUES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
G van der Waldt
... More contemporary conceptions of government are still based largely on these “pillars”, but are also influenced strongly by the political ideas of Tilak, Aurobindo, Kautilya, and Gandhi (Radhakrishnan and Moore 1967:22). Indian ...
[PDF] THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PREVENTIVE & REFORMATIVE THEORIES
Page 1. 85 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIO-LEGAL ANALYSIS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VOLUME 3 ISSUE II ISSN 2455 4049 85 WWW.IJSARD.ORG THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PREVENTIVE & REFORMATIVE THEORIES ...
The Observation Process and Logic of the Supermind - With our experience of the mental consciousness, it is essentially impossible to fully comprehend the operation of the supermind. The best we can do, abse...
in AUROVILLE, EN FRANCAIS, HUMAN UNITY, MY FAR MEMORIES,PRACTICE OF CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION / INTEGRAL YOGA, SRI AUROBINDO & THE MOTHER, THE NEW EVOLUTIVE STEP, THOUGHT POWER
The challenges of these more recent years seem to be different, but they are actually the same: it is still the very same Dark Forces doing their best to set human beings, groups, countries, religions, whatever, against each other in the name of their Exclusive Truth supposed to be the Absolute Truth… while the Real Truth, the Supramental Truth brought down by Sri Aurobindo and Mother, now at work upon Earth, being from that Plane beyond the Mental plane, is an all-inclusive Truth, rounded, all embracing, spherical like the Matrimandir at the Centre of Auroville, acting as its Soul…
THE ARGUMENT. Mother presents us with a great enigma. Illness and pain are the known realities of life, yet she says they are false and do not exist. Death is an omnipresent threat which claims all men, yet she ...
Mother says our every reaction, compulsion, sense of incapacity, feeling of inevitability - is like this - even the compulsion of aging and death (it need not happen if the cells do not accept the habit of aging and dissolution. If instead they accept a higher power that gives them freedom to be whatever they want forever). Death exists only for cells that accept the vibration, the suggestion of dissolution. It has no reality at all for cells that do not respond to that suggestion.
8 hours ago - After completion of college, Ameeta joined Mirambika as a teacher for 4 years, where she became grounded in the educational philosophy of Sri Aurobindo. She later took up International youth work, and also ...
Daily News & Analysis-19-May-2017
The piece argues that RW essentially boils down to two groups, right ... that impossible possible”: “Modi provided a bridge between the two.
With the display of “hyper-nationalism”, “dietary directives”, and “vigilantism”, not to speak of “the growing tribe of self-appointed definers and defenders of Indian culture and history”, Seetha contends that the liberal right’s patience is wearing thin. The “sneering” and “belligerent” opposition to their concerns is not just distressing, but “distasteful”. She fears that the “chasm between the two groups… is not going to be bridged any time soon”. Instead, they seem to be on the verge of a decisive split: “As a result, there is going to be no right-wing ecosystem representing all shades of opinion, the way there is a left-wing ecosystem. A right-wing ecosystem may get built, but this will be monochromatic, not multi-hued.”
|The Indian Express||-June 18 2017|
June 18 2017