Dear Sir,

Thank you for the gracious comments. But the credit goes to our ancestors, whose ideas we only presented in our language. Most of what we have written are contained in the first chapter of Maha Bhashya of Patanjali. The rest are from Shatapatha Brahman, as interpreted by our fore-fathers and received by us from traditional sources. It is a pity that there is not a single book that interprets the texts correctly. Those like Raja Ramanna or presently Sridattadev Kanchrla have tried to show off their knowledge of Vedanta in a wholly inappropriate manner. In any case, they have not understood what they are talking about.

We find that the Westerners are more interested to secretly study our ancient works and publish whatever they understood as their original work or at best Buddhist thoughts to misguide others. But since they have not understood it properly, they are often misled. This creates the confusion. For example, string theory was developed on the basis of "vayurvai tat sootram". But the Vayu here has 11 pairs of subdivisions unknown to them. Thus, they are talking about 11-dimensions in vain. In various threads here we have shown that dimension can only be three. It is a pity that scientists and Sanskrit Pundits in our country shun our work equally. Scientists due to bias and Sanskrit Pundits to hide their ignorance.

We have published a book on Vaidic Theory of Numbers, which discusses many subjects of physics apart from Number theory. The book is free of cost. In case you want a copy, you can send your postal address to: mbasudeba@gmail.com,

Regards,

basudeba

    Sreenath, well done for this engaging essay. Classically you have "bit from it", but in quantum physics the reverse. Fine, the world it quantised so "It from bit" must be the reality. You say the mind is required to make this work which is a commonly defended point of view, but what was there before the first mind?

    cheers Phil

      Dear Basudeba,

      If you are talking of Maha Bhashya of Patanjali and Shatapatha Brahman, then you have a very good knowledge of Sanskrit. Sanskrit is such good language that it is very rich in vocabulary, literature and grammar. But it is almost forgotten in modern India. I am moved by your courtesy to send me a copy of your book by post. For that I will send my postal address later to you.

      Thanking you and best of luck in the contest.

      sreenath

      Dr. Philip,

      Thanks for your query. Before the first mind? Of course there were Its and Bits, but to make meaning out of them the existence of mind or something similar to that is essential. I have stated in my conclusion that, 'It and Bit in themselves are empty and blind without mind'.

      If you are asking regarding the existence of first mind, you will find answer to that in detail in the 'biology' section of my essay. There I have explained clearly how mind came in to existence (as a result of the evolution of Life for over billions of years). If you have further queries, please, inform me.

      Regards,

      sreenath

      Sreenath, it is a nice synthesis of ideas. I wish you luck in the contest.

      Phil

      Sreenath,

      Nice multidisciplinary perspective. In the quest of understanding the universe, each scientific discipline contributes, and you provided a well written unified view of this.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

        Cristinel,

        Thanks for your kind comments. I will shortly post my comments on your essay soon.

        Best wishes,

        Sreenath

        Screenath,

        Interesting thoughts.

        "Although Information & Reality (Bit & It)have physical origin,without mind

        they are in themselves empty and blind.Bit comes from It, but mind can

        know of It only through Bit."

        If there is no mind at the time of the Big Bang and before humans were possible (1 billion yrs after), is reality (material world) empty and blind? What is your concept of consciousness -- when it appeared? Are "it" and reality the same?

        Cristinel,

        I congratulate you on your well written essay in which you have clearly pointed out the defects prevailing in Wheeler's views stemming from his delayed choice experiment.

        But, your interpretation of Zero Axiom, I feel, is not right. Because you have said that according to Zero Axiom, the proposition p 'and' its negation -p is always true; that is in symbols it is written as (p&-p). But this is wrong, for (p&-p) is 'always' false. So you should say, (p v -p). This proposition is always true for whatever value you ascribe to 'p'. Hence, you better change the last sentence of your essay which reads "Assuming both propositions p and -p are true, we want to prove q. Since p is true, p v q is true. But since -p is true, p is false. From p v q and -p follows that q is true" to "From the proposition (-p or q) is true, we want to prove q. If p is true, q must be true and the whole proposition (-p v q) is true. But if q is false, p must be true"; where 'must' is logical.

        In symbolic logic (-p or q) is written as p > q, meaning 'if p then q'.

        [p > q, p, * q; p > q, -q, * p] where * means therefore.

        Regarding this, please, consult a 'symbolic logician'.

        Wishing you best of luck in the contest,

        Sreenath

        Dear Dr.Michel,

        Thanks for your response and I too will post my comments on your essay soon.

        best regards,

        Sreenath

        Dear James,

        I, like a classical physicist, believe in the objective reality of the physical world. But how to have a conception of it without reference to mind is the problem. Can you just imagine how it appears without mind? That is why I called both information and reality, empty and blind. This is just like the absolute concept of space and time in the Newtonian system as exposed by Einstein; what is space in itself and time in itself 'without reference' to something external to them (say, change). They have no 'meaning' in themselves.

        By 'It', I mean 'reality' as it is evident from the title of the essay itself.

        By 'consciousness', I mean it is an innate quality possessed by the mind as a result of billions of years of the evolution of Life. To know more about it, please, go through 'biology' section of my essay in which I have clearly described how mind, through the evolution of Life acquired this innate quality by interacting with the environment; there I have said how on parallel lines the relationship existing between the evolution of Life and the evolution of the knowledge of mind can be comprehended.

        Thanks for your kind query and welcome more discussions.

        Best regards,

        Sreenath

        Dear Dr. Michel,

        Your essay is highly original and intriguing but at the same time it appears as if it is written for the experts in the field but not keeping general audience in the perspective. It is interesting to know how far the different geometric methods, you have followed in this article, are capable of solving other problems prevailing in QM. I congratulate you for producing such an innovative essay.

        Sreenath

        Dear Sreenath,

        interesting essay. In particular I like your multi-disciplinary view. I have only some comments:

        - I think, that quantum mechanics do not imply that space and time is discrete. We don't know the curve of the electron but the space points can exist.

        - Pure mathematics based on axioms but that is not as rigid as it sounds. In particular as shwon by Gödel, every axiom system (expressing or encoding information in a specific manner) is incomplete. It left open a lot of flessibility to change math.

        Hopefully more later

        I will be absent for the next three weeks

        Good luck and all the best

        Torsten

          Dear Sreenath,

          As I already said, I liked your essay. In particular your view of the evolution of the knowledge of mind. Now my observation is that it should not be so easy to separate the different fields 'classical, quantum, mathematical and biological' in what regards our understanding of reality. All realities are postulated by our mind, depending on the object we are looking at we just fit to it with the constraints that the object is giving to us. In the past, I worked a lot on the synchronization of ultrastable (classical) clocks and I found the structure of rational numbers in the measurements (the Farey tree and the related mathematical objects). In each case, what we find is contextual. In classical physics, the observables are just real numbers while in quantum physics they are operators with the new problem of non-commutativity that creates problem with the time.

          My best regards,

          Michel

            Dear Dr. Michel,

            I appreciate your kind comments. It is good to learn that we share some common basic views regarding the existence of knowledge.

            Best regards,

            Sreenath

            Dear Sreenath,

            Hi,

            Your essay is clearly written. I have some comments on some individual passages.

            Your essay starts with a nice contrast between classical and quantum physics. However, I find it a bit harsh to say "String Theory, Loop QG and the like, ... lack new and original concepts and hypotheses." Also, your implication that these theories, albeit not yet tested, are untestable, is rather too strong.

            You then go on to define information as "the data that our five senses perceive from the environment by communicating or interacting with it". This is a defensible position, although in practice it would make physics rather awkward; definitions in terms of energy exchange and so forth tend to be more practical.

            ".... had begun on earth for about a billion years, even prior to the existence of simplest form of life, "

            I think this mistake (given that life on earth started more like 3.5 billion years ago) was spotted by another comment, so I won't go further into it.

            "Given its [life's] enormous complexity of existence (even in its simplest form), no sort of probabilistic explanation based on mathematical physics including QM can account for it and has defied all rational explanations based on physics." The fact that it hasn't yet been done does not imply that it cannot be. The general assumption in modern biology is, in fact, that biology will be able to be theoretically reduced to physics one day.

            "...the product of biological evolution and man is said to be at its pinnacle."

            No longer the general biological outlook. The pinnacle is occupied by any organism that has managed to survive. Man is at a pinnacle, but so is the cockroach.

            „there is no limit to the comprehension power of the human mind just as there is no limit to the horizon of his imagination‟.

            The results of the twentieth century outlined some of the limitations of the human (or any) intellect, or, put another way, they restricted the types of questions that it makes sense to ask. So, if humans keep their questions within those bounds, then of course they can get the answers, but alas humans tend to seek answers beyond those bounds.

            "Similarly the Reality derived from the axioms, through successive mathematical steps (which are intuitively certain), follows as logical conclusion from the axioms and it too is abstract. So Reality as conclusion is covertly contained in the axioms. In this sense, mathematics just like logic is a tool used by mind to realize Reality and the veracity of the Reality thus derived from the axioms, depends on the veracity of the axioms but not on the kind of mathematics (or logic) used."

            This was basically Immanuel Kant's position in "The Critique of Pure Reason", but this position was shot down by the results of Lobachevsky and Bolyai, and the twentieth century continued to shoot it down. It is no longer a defensible position.

            Best, David

            Dear David,

            Thanks for going through my essay in detail and with care. There is no exaggeration in what I have said in my essay. I would like to answer all your questions point by point.

            String Theory, Loop QG and the like are not physical theories; they are just mathematical ploys which intimidate physics by posing themselves as unified physical theories. I reject them because in spite of their formulation since at least two decades ago they have not been able to make a testable prediction which would either verify their veracity or over throw them. Whenever you formulate a unified theory, you not only just combine two theories in your mathematical scheme but also must be able to make some new predictions because you are viewing the 'reality' from quite a different point of view. Have they been able to make such predictions testable, at least, in the near future? They say that they are testable at an energy range of the order of 10^18 GeV or at a scale of the order of 10^-33 cm (Planck length). The energy range that we have attained now is of the order of 10^4 GeV and the corresponding microscopic range we have reached is of the order of 10^-19 cm; now just tell me when are we going to reach this scale so that we can test their veracity? Do you say let it take thousand years to reach that scale when they will surely be verified? Let them make, at least one immediate testable prediction which is the hall mark of any physical theory then I will agree with them. So far testable predictions made by LQG, super symmetries, etc. have been falsified and string theory is sterile because it is unable to make any testable prediction and on the contrary it claims that there are 10^500 universes and no man who is having 'common sense' is ready to believe this outlandish stuff.

            Regarding the definition of information, you are saying that it makes the position of physics awkward; the 'data' that we perceive from the world around us i.e., from physical objects are about their energy, position, motion, force, etc. and I don't know how it makes it awkward.

            Regarding the existence and evolution of Life on earth; it is generally believed that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years and about a billion years after its formation in the solar system, the evolution of the 'biological network' (biosphere) started to take place by living materials, especially DNA and this I have explained clearly in the essay. It is this process which led to the existence of Life in its simplest form and this process continued to become the evolution of Life and it is continuing even today. So the evolutionary process started about 3.5 billion years ago to form the biosphere and after about a billion years later, that is, about 2.5 billion years ago simplest Life forms originated and later more and more complex forms evolved. Now tell me where is the mistake regarding the age of the existence and evolution of Life?

            Regarding inexplicability of biology on the basis of physics; I want to give just one example which makes it quite clear to you why. Suppose I wave my hand towards a crowd and as a physicist you can explain the motion of my hand quite clearly but can you explain on the basis of your physics 'the intension or purpose behind the waving of my hand?' You know that it is absolutely impossible and it needs no explanation. It is because of this 'qualitative' difference between biology and physics, biology cannot be reduced to physics. It is this 'purpose' which is at the basis of the existence and evolution of Life. But this purpose is 'not divine'; it is as a result of the 'tendency' exhibited by 'living materials'.

            Regarding 'man at the pinnacle of the evolution of Life'; evolution of Life is not to be viewed as simply production of more and more complex organisms but it is to viewed as 'analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind'. In this sense man is at the pinnacle of the evolution of Life but not in the sense of adoptability to the environment.

            Regarding comprehension power of the human mind, you cannot restrict it and if you succeed in it like religious authorities in the past, remember that you would not have seen the sort of transformations in all fields of human activity that you are seeing now. But sometimes you got to ask right or useful questions to enhance the comprehension power of the human mind but not to mitigate it.

            Regarding your last question on mathematics, I didn't know that Kant held similar views. Of course, Kant had no clue of the existence of non-Euclidian geometries and I don't understand what this has got anything to do with my view on mathematics. In my view, axioms are basic to mathematical theories and the veracity of the conclusions drawn from the axioms depends on the veracity of the axioms themselves but not on the type of mathematics used or applied. If you use in your axioms elements of non-Euclidian geometry, say, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and Reimann, the kind of mathematics you have to apply is what is already applied by them.

            So, please, go through my essay once again regarding this and if you still find anything confusing, have discussions with me.

            I will shortly post my comments on your essay.

            Best regards,

            Sreenath

              Hi, Sreenath

              Paragraph by paragraph:

              I do not dispute that string theory and loop quantum gravity have not as yet been tested and, if this keeps up, they may need to be relegated to the dustbin of useless theories. (But remember that it was many years between the first statement of Einstein's theories and the possibility to measure them; so too was Bell's theorem only much later tested in the lab, and so forth. It may be too early to rule out the possibility to test string theory or loop quantum gravity.) But in any case I would not say that they have not come up with new ideas, which is what you mentioned. Some of the mechanisms in these theories are quite ingenious; whether they are physics or just good fantasy is another question. But good fantasy can also come up with new ideas.

              When I said that the use of your definition might be a little awkward in practice even if valid in theory, I meant that physics is couched in terms which are mostly stated as if humans did not come into it: even the observers in relativity do not need to be human, quantum physics deals with changes by energy, not mentioning whether that energy is part of a chain linking it to a human. Physics equations do not need a human in them, allowing them to be used by both Idealists and Materialists. The interpretation as to what the equations mean is another matter. Hence, in measuring for example the entropy of a black hole, one does not put in a chain of equations linking it to the humans who make the measurements of the astronomers from their radio telescopes. You yourself emphasize the link of physics to mathematics, and one generally uses 2+2=4 without explicitly stating that humans invented the plus sign. Yes, it is understood that the link is there, that physics as a human activity (which may be different to the laws of the universe) requires humans, but in practice this link remains implicit, not explicit. Making it explicit would make physics very awkward. This does not mean that it is an invalid philosophical position, though.

              I now understand what you meant: I misunderstood your phrase ".... had begun on earth for about a billion years, even prior to the existence of simplest form of life, " to imply that "the existence of simplest form of life" preceded the point of time of a billion years ago, whereas you meant the billion years between the formation of the earth and the beginning of life. My mistake; thanks for explaining this to me.

              As far as biology's reduction to physics: this is, at the moment, a matter of belief, since of course right now one cannot carry out this reduction. However, there is nothing to exclude it, and the practice of modern neurobiology rests on the goal of completing this reduction eventually. Indeed, quite a lot about intention in the brain is already known. Your example only rests on your belief that the limitations of our present technology are absolute. Of course, even when the correlation between brain and mind will be perfect, there will still remain the option to say that it is only a correlation, and that they are not the same thing. This is known as the Mind-Body Problem; you can google it for further information.

              You are of course free to coin your own definition of evolution; I was merely pointing out that your definition does not coincide with the common definition in modern biology.

              The restrictions I had in mind were not akin to those of religion or religious authorities. Rather, I was thinking of the restrictions brought about by quantum physics (you cannot ask what goes on in the "quantum foam") and by mathematical logic (if you use mathematics in which arithmetic can be embedded, then you cannot determine, using the tools of that mathematics, whether your system is consistent; using another system to determine it then merely transfers the problem to your new system).

              Perhaps I understood your stance incorrectly, but it appeared to me that you were implying that Reality was deducible from pure mathematics. In Kant's terms, that there are a priori synthetic truths. For this Kant used the example of the statement that a triangle will always contain 180 degrees, which then was shown to be false. That is, a system of pure mathematics alone (I emphasize "alone") cannot explain Reality, because a mathematician can think of another system which will contradict that explanation, and is mathematically just as valid. That does not mean that mathematics is useless: that is, combining mathematics with something else could very well explain reality, but the problem is to figure out what that "something else" is. I don't have the answer to that one.

              Best regards, David

              Dear Sreenath,

              As promised, I read your essay. I must confess I do not have the expertise to comment on issues which relate to mind, biology, and mathematics. In our essay we were addressing `it versus bit' in quantum theory - you say bit is more important than it in quantum theory. We argue against this hypothesis and conclude otherwise, even for quantum theory.

              A few statements in your essay puzzle me. You say: "Whereas in quantum physics, both Space and Time are discrete entities and hence there are gaps in both Spatial and Temporal intervals; i.e., Space and Time are quantized. " But this is not so - space-time is assumed to be a continuum in quantum theory. Also I could not understand what it means to say "In this sense, even our Knowledge is non-physical in nature although it tries to explain the physics of the external world."

              With best regards,

              Tejinder