Wat is eg,,en,Besprekings met Ranga,,en,Hierdie boodskap is 'n lang bespreking per e-pos wat ek met my vriend Ranga gehad het,,en,Die onderwerp was die onwerklikheid van die werklikheid van dinge en hoe hierdie begrip in die fisika toegepas kan word,,en,Gaan weer deur die debat,,en,Ek voel dat Ranga homself beter bekwaam in die filosofiese aangeleenthede beskou as ek,,en,ek doen ook,,en,Ek beskou hom as beter gelees as ek,,en,Maar ek voel dat sy aanname,,en,dat ek nie soveel geweet het dat ek oor sulke dinge moes praat nie,,en,het miskien sy mening bevooroordeeld en hom verblind vir sommige van die werklik nuwe dinge,,en,na my mening,,en,Ek moes sê,,en,nietemin,,en,Ek dink daar is 'n hele paar interessante punte wat tydens die debat na vore gekom het wat van algemene belang kan wees,,en,Ek het die debat geredigeer en geformateer vir leesbaarheid,,en? Discussions with Ranga.

Tue,,en,Ek ondersoek die rol van lig in die waarneming en argumenteer dat die spesiale lig van die snelheid van lig in ons werklikheid afhang van die feit dat ons 'n werklikheid is wat geskep word deur lig,,en,Net soos die spoed van klank spesiaal sou wees in die werklikheid van 'n vlermuis wat met eggolokasie geskep word,,en,soos jy gesê het,,en,Klank is belangrik vir 'n vlermuis,,en,maar is nie die enigste manier waarop dit die eksterne wêreld waarneem nie, laat staan ​​nog sy eie liggaam,,en,So is ook lig vir mense,,en,Om op navorsing as 'n navorsingstrategie te fokus, is anders as om te sê dat lig fundamenteel vir ons spesiaal is,,en,in terme van AR of selfs R,,en,lig het geen spesiale plek as sodanig nie,,en,ook,,en,R moet duideliker gedefinieer word soos van toepassing op alle wesens,,en,of slegs vir mense,,en,of net vir jou,,en,Hierdie self is 'n konseptuele doolhof,,en,as u daaraan gedink het,,en, May 22, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Hi Ranga:I disagree with a lot of your comments in the last mail, so let me try to voice my views properly.

Sound is important to a bat, but is not the only way it perceives the external world let alone its own body. So is light for humans. To focus on light as a research strategy is different from saying that light is fundamentally special to us. So, in terms of AR or even R, light has no special place as such.

This assertion about light has no special place in our PR doesn’t seem to follow from the sentences before. My argument goes like this: Space is a cognitive representation of the light falling in our eyes, much like sound is a representation of the air pressure waves falling in our ears. So in our space, light has a special place. More specifically, its speed has a special place in the way we sense motion in our space.

Also, R has to be defined more clearly as applicable to all beings, or only to humans, or only to you. This itself is a conceptual maze- if you have thought about it.

PR doesn’t have to be the same for different sensory modalities, much like space and sound don’t have to be the same. Let me illustrate this with an example. Assume that you are asked to compute how to hit a moving target with a projectile. Say, an object is moving away from you and you measure the speed to be half the speed of sound, you have a gun that will shoot a shell at a constant horizontal speed of 0.75 Mach. What is the angle of the gun muzzle? You can use classical mechanics and solve it fairly easily. Let’s say that the angle is A. Now suppose you pose the same problem to a hypothetical, intelligent bat (that is blind). It can be shown that using echolocation, the bat will measure a different speed for both the object and the shell. In fact, he would be using something remarkably similar to relativistic mechanics (with the speed of light replaced by the speed of sound) because his echolocatedspacewill obey that mechanics. But the final answer for the angle he comes up with will still be A. Now, just because you and the bat come up with the same angle doesn’t mean that the space as you both see (the PR) is the same. Space can be very different in different sense modalities. The bat’s space obeys relativity while yours obeys classical mechanics.

But your explanations of the phenomenal world (for example GRBs) are not based on any aspect of AR at all, as it is not accessible to us, by our own definition. So, starting off with a framework of AR (as in your block diagram of AR->Perception/Cognition->Perceived Reality- >Measurements-,,en,misleidend,,en,nie nodig nie, aangesien dit glad nie in die verduideliking van GRB gebruik word nie,,en,Die kritieke punt in die uitleg van GRB is die bevraagtekening van die ligversperring wat deur 'n vorige teorie geskep is en nie deur enige aspek van hierdie raamwerk nie.,,en,Hierdie nuwe teorie moet verduidelik word in terme van die vervalsing en toetsing daarvan,,en,Met meer waarnemende waarnemings kan 'n mens dan hierdie teorie bewys of weerlê,,en,As 'n mens dit nie herken nie, raak dit konseptuele verwarring,,en,'n mens kan mense mislei om te glo dat wetenskap deur streng analise die absolute werklikheid kan raaksien,,en,selfs al is die voorneme om hierdie idee nie te bevorder nie,,en,Ek dink dat u veral hierdie idee in u boek moet vermy,,en,Soos ek vroeër gesê het,,en,Verskeie wetenskaplikes is geïnspireer deur die metafisiese konsep van AR,,en>Science) is 1) misleading 2) not necessary as it is not used at all in the explanation of GRB.

I’m afraid I don’t agree with you here either. The GRB explanation is based on the assumption that AR obeys classical mechanics (CM) not special relativity (SR), while PR obeys SR. In my block diagram goes like this: AR (CM) ->Perception/Cognition->Perceived Reality (SR) ->Measurements-,,en,misleidend,,en,nie nodig nie, aangesien dit glad nie in die verduideliking van GRB gebruik word nie,,en,Die kritieke punt in die uitleg van GRB is die bevraagtekening van die ligversperring wat deur 'n vorige teorie geskep is en nie deur enige aspek van hierdie raamwerk nie.,,en,Hierdie nuwe teorie moet verduidelik word in terme van die vervalsing en toetsing daarvan,,en,Met meer waarnemende waarnemings kan 'n mens dan hierdie teorie bewys of weerlê,,en,As 'n mens dit nie herken nie, raak dit konseptuele verwarring,,en,'n mens kan mense mislei om te glo dat wetenskap deur streng analise die absolute werklikheid kan raaksien,,en,selfs al is die voorneme om hierdie idee nie te bevorder nie,,en,Ek dink dat u veral hierdie idee in u boek moet vermy,,en,Soos ek vroeër gesê het,,en,Verskeie wetenskaplikes is geïnspireer deur die metafisiese konsep van AR,,en>Science

The critical point in the explanation of GRB is the questioning of the light barrier which was created by a previous theory and not by any aspect of this framework.

Not quite. The critical point is that it is the PR that obeys SR. We don’t know anything about the mechanics obeyed by AR. But we can certainly work out what kind of PR we would get if AR obeyed CM. It turns out that we would get something similar to SR (indicating that CM is a good candidate for the mechanics of AR). Thus, the light barrier exists only in PR, not in AR.

This new theory has to be explained in terms of how to falsify and test it. With more perceptual observations one can then prove or disprove this theory. If one does not recognize this one gets into conceptual confusion.

My notion (I don’t know if it is profound enough to be called a theory) is merely that AR doesn’t have to obey SR. It doesn’t have to obey CM either, but if it did, we would get a PR much like the space we perceive with the strange properties in sensing motion. It looks so obvious to me, but I’m having such a hard time communicating it, much less convincing anybody.

Further, one may mislead people into believing that science by rigorous analysis can help to see absolute reality (even if one intends not to perpetuate this notion). I think you should especially avoid this notion in your book.

In my book, I state it repeatedly that AR is beyond our grasp, comprehension; it is unknowable etc. Even when I state that CM is a possible candidate for AR, I take some trouble to explain that it is only ONE possible candidate, there may be others. PR to AR mapping is one-to-many (very many, in fact).

This question is based on the assumption of a traditional notion of causation that something has to cause something else. When you are still working within this premise, you are still asking such questions. The notion of causality itself needs to be questioned. Do check J. Pearl (2000) – Causality: models, reasoning and inference and other related works. The concept of Brahman and Atman, and that of Sunyata in Buddhism, questioned causation even before Hume did it. We have to guard our scientific arrogance against taking a superiority attitudewe have yet to fathom some of these concepts.

I agree with you here, there is no a priori reason for causality to be respected in the Brahman-Maya context. I wonder if you ditch causality, will you end up in solipsism?

Can one be without the other? Can sound be without air pressure waves? Dit is waar dit bevraagteken word of Maya kan bestaan ​​sonder Brahman of andersom,,en,is soms 'n beperking,,en,Die idee dat 'n mens die AR kan bereik deur 'n beter analise van R is selfs meer gebrekkig,,en,Hiermee stem ek saam,,en,Maar ons hoef miskien nie na AR te gaan om ons waargenome R beter te verstaan ​​nie,,en,ek sou sê,,en,om ons waargenome R op 'n ander manier te verstaan,,en,beter of slegter is 'n mens se oogpunt,,en,wat laat ons daarmee,,en,Dit as u iets verduidelik,,en,soos GRB's,,en,jy verduidelik beide die AR en R omdat hulle verweef is,,en,die skoonheid hiervan wat enige teorie denkbaar het,,en,bewys of nie weerlê nie,,en,vervalsbaar of nie volgens 'n wetenskaplike metode nie,,en,verduidelik beide AR en R,,en,omdat die verduidelikings produkte van ons sintuie en intellek is,,en,wat deel is van ons wêreld,,en,As ons dit gesien het,,en.

Sure you can have sound without air pressure waves. In your dreams, for instance 🙂

That was a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but I have a point there. There is probably no Maya without Brahman. But Brahman can certainly exist in the absence of a conscious being, and therefore in the absence of Maya. At least, that is my understanding of Brahman and Maya. My causality-bound mind can only express it as, “Brahman creates Maya.

There are some other comments in your mail that I didn’t respond to. I picked on the ones that I didn’t quite agree with.

Look forward to your rebuttals. 🙂

– cheers,
– Manoj

Comments

One thought on “What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.”

Comments are closed.