“shoonya. … shoonyaatoon he jag utpanna zaale.”

(Marathi) “shoonya. …shoonyaatoon he jag utpanna zaale.”

That’s what our (retard/retarded/idiotic/idiot/moronic/cretin-some/even worse, but mostly more European-looking, e.g., “goraa”-looking by skin-color (etc.) than otherwise) Brahmins have always told us—all of them. And, our casteist-Brahmins have always taken the fullest advantage of the same. Especially if they went to an IIT to get a JPBTI. (What makes you think that attending IIT is enough to eradicate caste-ism out of one?)

An English translation of “shoonya”: the Zero/the Naught.

An English translation of the full statement: “The world [actually, thereby meaning, the entire universe] came into being from the Zero / the Naught.”

Always pick this one up for your meditation, even just for deep thought (and not a systematically trained meditation), whenever you think of the casteist-Brahmins, especially those from Pune, India (my birth-place and home-town).

… And you will do that, won’t you? [And, don’t say back: “But I don’t think of them!”]


Here is one of the zillion references to the position. (Pune casteist-Brahmins (rich and all) are emphatically not alone.): [^].


Update on 2019.06.12 14:59

Turns out that this post has come out to be a bit too rant-some for my liking. Also, when I wrote it last night, I thought that the philosophic position from which I wrote it would be clear enough! Yes, I really did think so, last night! But this morning, I figured out that it wasn’t so. Further, the issue is also is of a great philosophic importance. So, today, let me note at least the bare essentials of the philosophic analysis which had gone before I wrote the above post.

The quote actually commits only one error, but it also paves a way for another, grave, error. They in turn lead to a lot of other errors, including legitimizing the pure evil of casteism. Let me explain how.

Consider the quote again: The universe came into being from the Zero / the Naught.

The first error—one that is more easy to pick out—is that some precondition is being prescribed for the entire universe, i.e., for Existence as such. That’s all that the quote by itself states.

Since this is a metaphysical statement, and not mathematical, The Zero here means Non-Existence. So, no, the Zero here does not by itself mean some supposed Mystical Consciousness that created the Existence.

But note the context here. Since the concept of Existence is the most fundamental one of all, since it encompasses literally everything that ever exists, has ever existed or will ever exist, even just the simple device of importing into an argument a contra to Existence, an alternative to it, and according this alternative the same epistemological status as that of Existence, by itself leads to horrible consequences. The act is horrendous only because the concept of Existence is so fundamental—it’s the most fundamental concept. Given the proper hierarchical place of the concept of Existence, positing something—anything—alternative it, therefore, by itself has the effect of making the entire knowledge-hierarchy superfluous, with an alternative being thereby being made to lie at an even more fundamental level.

So, the issue subtly shifts, without the speaker having to explicitly name it, to a question of figuring out what this alternative could possibly be.

Given the nature of the things, the only alternative that could possibly make any sense to anyone would be: some or the other consciousness. The road is therefore paved for legitimizing the primacy of consciousness—a hallmark of mysticism.

Since men do sense, through a direct grasp, that their consciousness is not so capable that they could make Existence dance in accordance to their wishes, and since the proceedings now are being conducted firmly in the abstract terms, and since the layman is unable to counter it at the same level of abstraction, a further road now gets paved, viz., that for welcoming some mystical, Super-etc.-Consciousness.

All that the quoted formulation seeks to do is for you to grant legitimacy to this mystical formulation, viz., there is some mystical Super-Consciousness that preceded, and thus produced, Existence.

Got the trick?

Study the method of the Brahmins. They don’t name the issues directly. And especially if are like the irrational Brahmins of India, they also ensure that the entire proceedings occurs at an abstract level. And that makes it worse.

A mystic is always bad. But he could be as lacking of consequences as some random trickster who performs road-side shows. The mystic becomes bad, horrendous, only when he practices his art in the intellectual, abstract terms, in this world. A “sanyaasee” who retires to Himalayas doesn’t usually engage in abstract intellectual matters, and anyway is removed from the mundane world. So, any mysticism that he carries too doesn’t matter to the rest of us.

But a Brahmin who stays in the mainstream society, and intellectualizes, does matter. Afterall, in India, traditionally, the only men who were charged with (and allowed) dealing with abstractions were Brahmins.

The membership to this group was, for at least a couple of millenia if not more, on the basis of birth alone. … Sure, not all people born into a given caste are bad. But that is besides the point. The premises and the fact of abstract intellectualizations, and their consequences, is what we are concerned with, here.

So, once again carefully observe the role of abstractions—and the consequences of making, and keeping, mysticism abstract.

The Indian term for the aforementioned kind of a mystical Super-Consciousness—one that precedes Existence—was (and is): “bramha” (and not “bramhaa”). A “braamhaNa” was one who had a knowledge of (and therefore had a special access to) the Super-Consciousness that is the “bramha”. That’s what the literal meaning of the Sanskrit term is. “Brahmin” is just an Anglicization of “braamhaNa”.

If everything in existence is produced by “bramha”, so is every living being—including every human being.

Since all the proceedings are conducted without physical violence, and purely and perfectly at an intellectual plane alone, one “desirable” side-effect it produces is that the layman does not come to doubt that the intellectualizations being offered are not part of rationally acquired and valid knowledge.

It is an objective fact that reason is man’s fundamental means of survival. It therefore is an objective fact that knowledge does mean efficacy, a mastery over the matters it subsumes. In any demonstrable hierarchy of skills, knowledge—properly including also its application—is the most valuable one. It’s a crown skill. (Aristotle called rationality the crown-virtue.)

However, in India, it always was only a Brahmin who was charged with all matters concerning knowledge. And, membership to the class of intellectuals was via birth. That’s what casteism basically boils down to.

Therefore, any random guy, so long as he was born into the Brahmin caste, would necessarily have access to “bramha”. If all stars and mountains and rivers and trees and cats… are produced by “brahma”, and if all people too are produced by “brahma”, and if only a caste-Brahmins has access to “bramha”, and if a caste-Brahmin still was a human being too, then, given the fact that the position of knowledge as a crown-virtue is not being directly challenged at all, is it any surprise that every random caste-Brahmin guy would have to be taken as having “come” from the head of the Super-Consciousness that is the “bramha”?

(Don’t ask me what the term “head—a bodily organ—of a Super Consciousness” mean. I don’t know. Chances are, they might locate the actual living bodies of all caste-Brahmins to constitute the supposed head of that Super Consciousness, too. Who knows. But they certainly are that capable.)

While writing this update, I had said that there were several errors implicit in that statement. The one easiest to make out was: Denying the primacy of Existence. The consequent error, I said, was not as easy to make out. The reason it is difficult to figure out is that it is not directly named in that quote (i.e. the title of this post). But the second error becomes easy to grasp once you figure out that it is Brahmins who have always repeated this quote. The second error actually is a transformation of the first error. It is: the Primacy of “bramha”’s Consciousness. Introduce the third error: That only caste-Brahmin has access to “bramha”, and the lethal weapon is completed.

And what is “brahma”, you still ask? Easy enough. In practical terms, it means whatever it is that happens to constitute the contents of consciousness of any of the caste-Brahmins—including casteist-Brahmins.

And yes, there is ample evidence—for those willing to see it—that caste-Brahminism is not only wide-spread in Indian IT industry (especially that in Pune), but also that it has in fact been on the upswing for quite some time by now. I, for one, certainly do believe that if I were a Brahmin, I would have progressed much more rapidly, far more easily, in the Indian IT industry. At any rate, I wouldn’t go jobless even as irrational Brahmins in Pune kept on amassing money.

To conclude: Yes, it was a rant. But no, it wasn’t just a rant.


No songs section for this time around. I go jobless.

BTW, for cross-reference, cf. an American poem from (I guess) the mid-20th century: “The world began when I was born…”

 

My new approach to QM—an update, and a request (May 2019)

This post has reference to my earlier post of 30th March 2019, here [^]. Being busy mainly with learning Data Science, I didn’t subsequently find the time to systematically study the papers and the book which were suggested by the IIT Bombay professors back in March-end.


However, in the meanwhile, thinking about the whole issue independently (and on a part-time basis), I have come to work through a detailed scheme for calculating the wavefunctions for the case of a 1D helium atom.

In particular, the abstract case I have worked through is the following:

A single helium atom placed in a 1D domain of a finite length, and with either reflecting boundary conditions (i.e. infinite potential walls) at the two ends (i.e. a 1D box), or possibly also with periodic boundary conditions imposed at the two ends (i.e. an infinite 1D lattice of 1D helium atoms). The problem is to find the energy eigenstates for the system wavefunction, assuming that the electrons do interact with each other.

The electrons are spinless. However, note, I have now addressed the case of the interacting electrons too.


I have not performed the actual simulations, though they can be done “any time.”

Yet, before proceeding to write the code, I would like to show the scheme itself to some computational quantum chemist/physicist, and have a bit of a to-and-fro regarding how they usually handle it in the mainstream QM/QChem, and about the commonality and differences (even the very basic reasonableness or otherwise) of my proposed scheme.

I can even go further and say that I have now got stuck at this point.


I will also continue to remain stuck at this same point unless one of the following two things happens: (i) a quantum chemist having a good knowledge of the computer simulation methods, volunteers to review my scheme and offer suggestions, or (ii) I myself study and digest a couple of text-books (of 500+ pages) and a few relevant papers (including those suggested by the IIT Bombay professors).

The second alternative is not feasible right now, simply because I don’t have enough time at hand. I am now busy with learning data science, and must continue to do so, so that I can land a job ASAP. (It’s been more than a year that I have been out of a job.)


So, if you are knowledgeable about this topic (the abstract case I am dealing with above, viz., that of 1D helium atom with spinless but interacting electrons), and also want to help me, then I request you to please see if you can volunteer just a bit of your time.

If no one comes to help me, it could take a much longer period of time for me to work through it all purely on my own—anywhere from 6–8 months to a year, or as is easily possible, even much more time—may be a couple of years or so, too. … Remember, I will also be working in a very highly competitive area of data science too, during all this time.

On the other hand, to someone who has enough knowledge of this matter, it wouldn’t be very strenuous at all. He only has to review the scheme and offer comments, and generally remain available for help, that’s all.

(It would be quite like someone approaching me for some informal guidance on FEM simulation of some engineering case. Even if I might not have modeled some particular case myself in the past, say a case of some fluid-structure interaction, I still know that I could always act as a sounding board and offer some general help to such a guy. I also know that doing isn’t going to be very taxing on me, that it’s not going to take too much of my own time. The situation here is quite similar. The quantum chemist/physicist doesn’t have to exert himself too much. I am confident of this part.)

So, there. See if you can help me out yourself, or suggest someone suitable to me. Thanks in advance.


A song I like:
(Marathi) “vaaTa sampataa sampenaa…”
Lyrics: Devakinandan Saaraswat
Music: Dattaa Daavajekar
Singer: Jayawant Kulkarni

Why is the research on the foundations of QM necessary?

Why is the research on the foundations of QM necessary? … This post is meant to hold together some useful links touching on various aspects of this question.


Bob Doyle

He has interests in philosophy but has a PhD in astrophysics from Harvard. He maintains not just an isolated page on the measurement problem, but a whole compendium of them, which together touch on all issues related QM—and these form just a part of his Web site which also deals with many issues from philosophy proper like free-will, mind, knowledge, values, etc. Added attraction: He also keeps papers of historical relevance (like Schrodinger’s paper on quantum jumps, for instance).

His page on the measurement problem is very fascinating. He mentions all the relevant issues (including giving links to the topics), summarizes all the important positions in a very accurate manner (quoting passages from historically important papers). You are bound to get just the right kind of a perspective on this problem if you refer to this page and (what is easy to state): “all the references therein”!. Here is the page: [^] (which I had noted in my Twitter feed on 25 August 2019).

[This section added on 2019.09.18 07:43 IST]


Sabine Hossenfelder:

See her blog post: “Good Problems in the Foundations of Physics” [^]. Go through the entirety of the first half of the post, and then make sure to check out the paragraph of the title “The Measurement Problem” from her list.

Not to be missed: Do check out the comment by Peter Shor, here [^], and Hossenfelder’s reply to it, here [^]. … If you are familiar with the outline of my new approach [^], then it would be very easy to see why I must have instantaneously found her answer to be so absolutely wonderful! … Being a reply to a comment, she must have written it much on the fly. Even then, she not only correctly points out the fact that the measurement process must be nonlinear in nature, she also mentions that you have to give a “bottom-up” model for the Instrument. …Wow! Simply, wow!!

Update (2019.09.18 07:43 IST): Also see a post she wrote a few months later: “The Problem with Quantum Measurements”, [^]. It generated 450 comments, but not many were too inspiring!


Lee Smolin:

Here is one of the most lucid and essence-capturing accounts concerning this topic that I have ever run into [^]. Smolin wrote it in response to the Edge Question, 2013 edition. It wonderfully captures the very essence of the confusions which were created and / or faced by all the leading mainstream physicists of the past—the confusions which none of them could get rid of—with the list including even such Nobel-laureates as Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, and others. [Yes, in case you read the names too rapidly: this list does include Einstein too!]


Sean Carroll:

He explains at his blog how a lack of good answers on the foundational issues in QM leads to “the most embarrassing graph in modern physics” [^]. This post was further discussed in several other posts in the blogosphere. The survey paper which prompted Carroll’s post can be found at arXiv, here [^]. Check out the concept maps given in the paper, too. Phillip Ball’s coverage in the Nature News of this same paper can be found here [^].


Adrian Kent:

See his pop-sci level paper “Quantum theory’s reality problem,” at arXiv [^]. He originally wrote it for Aeon in 2014, and then revised it in 2018 while posting at arXiv. Also notable is his c. 2000 paper: “Night thoughts of a quantum physicist,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 358, 75–87. As to the fifth section (“Postscript”) of this second paper, I am fully confident that no one would have to wait either until the year 2999, or for any one of those imagined extraterrestrial colleagues to arrive on the scene. Further, I am also fully confident that no mechanical “colleagues” are ever going to be around.

[Added on 2019.05.05 15:41 IST]


…What Else?:

What else but the Wiki!… See here [^], and then, also here [^].


OK. This all should make for an adequate response, at least for the time being, to those physicists (or physics professors) who tend to think that the foundational issues do not make for “real” physics, that it is a non-issue. … However, for obvious reasons, this post will also remain permanently under updates…

Revision History:

2019.04.15: First published
2019.04.16: Some editing/streamlining
2019.05.05: Added the paper by Prof. Kent.
2019.09.18: Added the section on Bob Doyle. Added a recent post by Sabine Hossenfelder.