*I Quantum superposition begs us to ask, “What is real?”* The world of the very, very small is a wonderland of strangeness. Molecules, atoms, and their constituent particles did not readily reveal their secrets to the scientists that wrestled with the physics of atoms in the early 20th century. Drama, frustration, anger, puzzlement, and nervous breakdowns abounded, and it is hard for us now, a full century later, to understand what was at stake. What happened was a continuous process of worldview demolition. You might have to give up believing everything you thought to be true about something. In the case of the quantum physics pioneers, that meant changing their understanding about the rules that dictate how matter behaves.
*String energy* In 1913, Bohr devised a model <https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-jumps-niels-bohr-atom/> for the atom that looked somewhat like a solar system in miniature. Electrons moved around the atomic nucleus in circular orbits. Bohr added a few twists to his model — twists that gave them a set of weird and mysterious properties. The twists were necessary for Bohr’s model to have explanatory power — that is, for it to be able to describe the results of experimental measurements. For example, electrons’ orbits were fixed like railroad tracks around the nucleus. The electron could not be in between orbits, otherwise it could fall into the nucleus. Once it got to the lowest rung in the orbital ladder, an electron stayed there unless it jumped to a higher orbit. Clarity about why this happened started to come with de Broglie’s idea that electrons can be seen both as particles and waves <https://bigthink.com/13-8/wave-particle-duality-matter/>. This wave-particle duality of light and matter was startling, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle <https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-uncertainty-language/> gave it precision. The more precisely you localize the particle, the less precisely you know how fast it moves. Heisenberg had his own theory of quantum mechanics, a complex device to compute the possible outcomes of experiments. It was beautiful but extremely hard to calculate things with. A little later, in 1926, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger had a huge idea. What if we could write an equation for what the electron is doing around the nucleus? Since de Broglie suggested that electrons behave like waves, this would be like a wave equation. It was a truly revolutionary idea, and it reframed our understanding of quantum mechanics. In the spirit of Maxwell’s electromagnetism, which describes light as waving electric and magnetic fields, Schrödinger pursued a wave mechanics that could describe de Broglie’s matter waves. One of the consequences of de Broglie’s idea was that if electrons were waves, then it was possible to explain why only certain orbits were allowed. To see why this is true, imagine a string being held by two people, Ana and Bob. Ana jerks it quickly, creating a wave moving toward Bob. If Bob does the same, a wave moves toward Ana. If Ana and Bob synchronize their actions, a standing wave <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone#/media/File:Harmonic_partials_on_strings.svg> appears, a pattern that doesn’t move left or right and that exhibits a fixed point between them called a node. If Ana and Bob move their hands faster, they will find new standing waves with two nodes, then three nodes, and so on. You can also generate standing waves by plucking a guitar string with varying strengths, until you find standing waves with different numbers of nodes. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the energy of the standing wave and the number of nodes. *The Born legacy* De Broglie pictured the electron as a standing wave around the nucleus. As such, only certain vibrating patterns would fit in a closed circle — the orbits, each characterized by a given number of nodes. The allowed orbits were identified by the number of nodes of the electron wave, each with its specific energy. Schrödinger’s wave mechanics explained why de Broglie’s picture of the electron as a standing wave was accurate. But it went much further, generalizing this simplistic picture into three spatial dimensions. In a sequence of six remarkable papers, Schrödinger formulated his new mechanics, applied it successfully to the hydrogen atom, explained how it could be applied to produce approximate answers to more complicated situations, and proved the compatibility of his mechanics with Heisenberg’s. The solution to Schrödinger’s equation was known as the *wave function*. Initially, he thought of it as describing the electron wave itself. This was in accord with classical notions of how waves evolve in time, obeying determinism. Given their initial position and velocity, we can use their equation of motion to predict what happens in the future. Schrödinger was particularly proud of this fact — that his equation restored some order to the conceptual mess caused by atomic physics. He never liked the idea of the electron “jumping” between discrete orbits. However, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle ruined this deterministic interpretation for the wave function. In the quantum world everything was fuzzy, and it was impossible to predict exactly the time evolution of the electron, be it particle or wave. The question became: Then what does this wave function mean? Bottom of Form Physicists were lost. How could the wave-particle duality of matter and light and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle be reconciled with Schrödinger’s beautiful (and continuous) wave mechanics? Again, a radical new idea was needed, and again someone had it. This time it was the turn of Max Born, who apart from being one of the principal architects of quantum mechanics was also the grandfather of 1970s rock star Olivia Newton-John. Born proposed, correctly, that Schrödinger’s wave mechanics did not describe the evolution of the electron wave, but the *probability *of finding the electron in this or that position in space. Solving Schrödinger’s equation, physicists compute how this probability evolves in time. We cannot predict with any certainty whether the electron will be found here or there. We can only give probabilities of it being found here or there once a measurement is made. In quantum mechanics, the probability evolves deterministically according to the wave equation, but the electron itself does not. The same experiment, repeated many times under the same conditions, can give different results. *Quantum superposition* This is quite strange. For the first time, physics has an equation that does not describe the behavior of something physical belonging to an object — like the position, momentum, or energy of a ball or planet. The wave function is not something real in the world. (At least, it is not so to *this* physicist. We will address this cumbersome issue soon.) Its square — actually, its absolute value, since it is a complex quantity — gives the probability of finding the particle at a certain point in space once a measurement is made. But what happens before the measurement? We can’t tell. What we say is that the wave function is a *superposition* of many possible states for the electron. Each state represents a position the electron might be found at once a measurement is made. A possibly useful image (they are all iffy) is to picture yourself in a room that is totally dark, walking toward a wall where many pictures are hanging. Lights turn on when you reach a specific location on the wall, in front of a painting. Of course, you know that you are a single person walking toward one of the paintings. But if you were a subatomic particle like an electron or a photon, there would be many copies of you walking toward the wall simultaneously. You would be in a superposition of many “yous”, and only one copy would reach the wall and cause the lights to turn on. Each copy of you would have a different probability of reaching the wall. Repeating the experiment many times, these different probabilities are uncovered. Are all copies moving in the dark room real, or only the one that hits the wall and turns on the lights? If only that one is real, how come others could also have hit the wall? This effect, known as *quantum superposition*, is perhaps the weirdest of them all. So weird and fascinating that it deserves a whole article. (JAN 23 WEST THINKING UNDER SCIENCE)( WEST STARTED THINKING ON REAL AND MAYA?). Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx II WHAT DOES ADVAITHA SAYS LONG AGO? An Indian sage once wrote: ‘…it is wrong to superimpose upon the subject…the attributes of the object and, conversely, to superimpose…[upon the object] the attributes of the subject.’ With these words, Adi Sankara (India, eighth century) pierced the Gordian knot of human misery. The primal cause of human suffering is a false superimposition in the mind of an object on the subject. It is this fundamental confusing of the respective natures of subject and object which produces our personal anguish and anxiety and, by extension our social tensions and conflicts. Our knowledge of things is ultimately rooted in experience, and ordinary experience always involves an object or event as well as a subject. In order to more easily grasp the notion of superimposition, Sankara gives an illustration using two objects, rather than the more difficult relation of subject and object. Sankara defines superimposition as, ‘the apparent presentation to consciousness, in the form of remembrance, of something previously observed in some other thing existing now.’ He demonstrates this false superimposition with the example of a snake and a rope. A man on a road sees a snake coiled up and ready to strike. He jumps back in fear. He peers through the evening gloom at the object of his fear and gives a sigh of relief when he realizes his mistake: the snake is merely a piece of rope. He walks on. The man had unconsciously superimposed on the rope his memory of a snake. All of this happened within his own consciousness although he was convinced the snake was real and external to himself. The phenomenon of superimposition creates illusions which can trigger a whole chain of events. In our example, the man’s misperception triggered the emotion of fear and stopped him in his tracks. Other forms of superimposition can be more catastrophic, as when a vengeful man murders an innocent person. In fact, a good case can be made that most human conflict, including war and genocide, is rooted in misperceptions arising from superimposition. Regarding the more difficult matter of superimposition occurring between subject and object, Sankara affirms that it is natural for human beings to superimpose the qualities of the object on the subject. However, he also holds that this tendency is deeply flawed. The essence of his argument is that the subject can never become its own object and therefore can never have observable qualities. For example, the self as subject cannot attribute a quality to itself such as, ‘white skin’ or ‘green eyes’ while at the same time observing its white skin or green eyes. This would be tantamount to stating that ‘my white skin’ is observing ‘my white skin’. In order for the subject to remain the subject it cannot assume observable qualities, such as colour, taste, emotions, beliefs, size, location, etc. Once an observable quality has been assigned to the subject, the subject then becomes an object which is observable to itself: an impossibility since this would require one subject which is the object and a second subject looking at the first while simultaneously being the first. It is true that common sense generally finds this acceptable with regards to other persons (e.g.,’he is white’). However, the contradiction becomes obvious when a quality is assigned to the self that is assigning it. When the ‘I’- subject is turned into an ‘I’-object, who then is the subject observing the object that ‘I am’? Such a conundrum invites an infinite regression of witnessing subjects. In order to avoid this logical impasse nothing empirical can be attributed to the original subject, which must remain qualityless. (KR: THIS IS ALSO THE MIND OF WESTERN THINKER ON INDIAN CONCEPT SO ACCURATELY) Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx III Adhyasa or Superimposition by Swami Sivananda MAN'S transmigration is due to the evil of superimposition and the bondage of superimposition is created by himself and none else. It is this that causes the misery of birth and death for the man of non-discrimination who is tainted by Rajas and Tamas. Superimposition is the favourite theme of the Vedanta philosophy to explain how the ever-free Self came to be bound at all. The Jiva is under self-hypnotism. He must dehypnotise himself by meditation on the significance of Tat Tvam Asi Mahavakya. Then alone he will be free and the Jiva who was bleating like a lamb will roar like a lion. Adhyasa literally means 'superimposition' in the sense of mistaken ascription or imputation to something of an essential nature or attribute not belonging to it. It is an apparent presentation of the attributes of one thing in another thing. It is the illusory attribution or superimposition of the universe in the Atman which has no universe in it, like the misconception of silver in mother-of-pearl, snake in the rope, man in the post, bluishness in the sky, water in the mirage. This wrong notion is caused through Avidya or ignorance. According to Sankara, Adhyasa is the apparent presentation in the form of remembrance to consciousness something previously observed in some other thing. This is illusory knowledge. Adhyasa, Bhranti, Adhyaropa, Kalpana are synonymous terms. Sankaracharya writes in his Bhashya: Some indeed define the term 'superimposition' as the superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another thing. The so-called Anyatha-khyativadins maintain that in the act of Adhyasa the attributes of one thing, silver for instance, are superimposed on a different thing existing in a different place, for instance, on mother-of-pearl (if we take for our example of Adhyasa the case of some man mistaking a piece of mother-of pearl before him for a piece of silver). The Atma-khyativadins maintain that in Adhyasa the modification in the form of silver of the internal organ is superimposed on the external thing, mother-of-pearl, and thus itself appears external. Both views fall under the above definition. In illusion an unspeakable silver is produced which is a reality for the time being. Silver is superimposed on the mother-of-pearl. The deluded soul actually bends down his body to the ground to possess the silver. The silver is not in the mind. It is not present somewhere else, because it could not have been experienced as here and now. You cannot say that it is mere non-entity. It is also not inherent in the mother-of-pearl, because it could not have been removed later on. Therefore, we are compelled to admit that the silver has no real existence anywhere, but it has only a seeming reality for the time being which is indeed indescribable. Others again define superimposition as the error founded on the non-apprehension of the difference of that which is superimposed from that on which it is superimposed. This is the definition of the Akhyativadins. Others, some Anyatha-khyativadins and the Madhyamikas, according to Ananda Giri, again define it as the fictitious assumption of attributes contrary to the nature of that thing on which something else is superimposed. But all these definitions agree in so far as they represent superimpositions as the apparent presentation of the attributes of one thing in another thing. And therewith agrees also the popular view which is exemplified by expressions such as the following: Mother-of-pearl appears like silver The moon although one only appears as if she were double. But how is it possible in the interior self which itself is not an object, there should be superimposed objects and their attributes? For, everyone superimposes, and object only on such other objects as are placed before him (i.e., in contact with his sense organs), and you have said before that the interior self which is entirely disconnected from the idea of the Thou (the non-ego) is never an object. It is not, we reply, non-object in the absolute sense. For, it is the object of the notion of the ego. [The Pratyagatman is in reality non-object, for it is Svayam-Prakasha, self-luminous, i.e., the subjective factor in all cognition. But it becomes the object of the idea of the ego in so far as it is limited or conditioned by its adjuncts which are the product of nescience, viz., the internal organ, the sense and the subtle and gross bodies, i.e., in so far as it is Jiva, individual or personal soul]. The interior Self is well known to exist on account of its immediate (intuitive) presentation. Nor is it an exceptionless rule that objects can be superimposed only on such other objects as are before us, i.e., in contact with our sense organs; for, non-discerning men superimpose on the ether, which is not the object of sensuous perception, the dark-blue colour. Hence it follows that, that assumption of the non-self being superimposed on the interior Self, is not unreasonable. The subject and the object which have for the spheres the notion of 'I' and 'thou' respectively, and which are opposed to each other, as darkness and light, cannot be identified. Their attributes also cannot be identified. Superimposition is an established fact. It is not an imaginary hypothesis. It is a serious mistake to superimpose on the subject, i.e., Atman whose nature is Intelligence, the object whose nature is insentiency and vice-versa to superimpose the subject and the attributes of the subject on the object. The subject is Atman or the Supreme Self whose nature is absolute consciousness. The object includes whatever of a non-intelligent nature, viz., body sense, mind, Prana and the objects of the senses, i.e., the manifested phenomenal universe. If the Atman or Brahman is really unconnected or unattached (Asanga), how can He be so related to the Koshas or the sheaths or the bodies as to be ordinarily regarded one with them? There are two kinds of relation in Indian logic. Samavaya Sambandha (inseparable relation as between an object and its parts, the quality and the thing that possesses the quality, the action and the actor, the type and the individual, etc.) and Samyoga Sambandha (relation by contact between two things as between a drum and a stick). Atman's relation to the Koshas can be of either sort. It can be only Adhyasa like that of a snake in the rope. This Adhyasa is of two kinds, viz., one-sided, e.g., the snake is superimposed on the rope but not the rope on the snake and mutual (Anyonya Adhyasa) i.e., Atman and its attributes are superimposed on the Koshas and the Koshas and their attributes are superimposed on the Atman. So we say, My body exists, shines and is blissful and I am a man, I am a Brahmin, I am a doctor, I am a celibate, I am a house-holder, I am hungry, I am thirsty, I am angry, etc. Attributes of the body are superimposed on the Self, if a man thinks of himself (his self) as stout, lean, fair, as standing, walking or jumping; attributes of the sense organs if he thinks of himself as mute, deaf, one-eyed or blind; attributes of the internal organ when he considers himself subject to desire, intention, doubt, determination and so on. Thus the producer of the notion of the ego i.e., the internal organ is superimposed in the interior self, which, in reality, is the witness of all the modifications of the internal organ and vice versa, the interior self which is the witness of everything is superimposed on the internal organ, the senses, and so on. In this way there goes on this natural beginningless and endless superimposition, which appears in the form of wrong conception is the cause of individual souls appearing as agents and enjoyers (of the results of their actions) and is observed by everyone. If nothing exists but one absolute simple being, if truth is one, whence arises this many which we experience through the Indriyas or organs, whence this appearance of this world by which we see ourselves surrounded and in which we exist as individual beings? Truth cannot certainly contradict experience. Brahman or Truth is associated with a certain illusory power called Maya or Avidya to which this appearance of the phenomenal universe is due. This is the statement of Sankaracharya. This world is not real. This plurality is an illusion. It is a mere appearance like a snake in the rope. It vanishes when one gets the knowledge of the Self. Avidya is beginningless but it terminates in the aspirant when Brahma Jnana dawns. So Avidya is Anadi-santam. This illusory power cannot be called 'Being' (Sat) for 'Being' is only Brahman; nor can it be called 'Non-being' (Asat) in the strict sense, for it somehow produces the appearance of this world. Just as a magician produces many things, such a mango tree from a seed, money and sweetmeats from sand, so also Brahman projects the appearance of the sense-universe by means of the illusory power, Maya. The individual soul blindly identifies himself with the adjuncts or vehicles (Upadhis), viz., the body, senses, Prana, mind, Buddhi, etc., the fictitious offering of Avidya. Instead of recognising himself to be pure Brahman, he calls himself a man or Jiva. The Avidya acts as a veil and hides his true nature. He is unable to look through and beyond the veil (Avidya). The body, senses, mind, etc., are superimposed on the pure self on account of the force of ignorance. Through the identification with the body, mind and senses, he imagines that he is the doer and enjoyer. The soul which in reality is pure all-pervading intelligence, non-active and infinite, thus becomes limited in extent as it were, limited in knowledge and power. Through his actions with selfish-motives, he burdens himself with merit and demerit. He has to reap the fruits of actions in future births. Thus he is bound down to this world. He is caught up in the round of births and deaths. He has to enjoy happiness and misery. Sankara does not mean that the world is absolutely nothing like the horn of a hare, or a barren woman's son, or a lotus in the sky. He means that the world has a relative existence, i.e., it is not so real as Brahman who exists in the past, present and future, that it is not real at all times. When compared with Brahman, the world is unreal. This is what he exactly means. Maya cannot be adequately described. It is a mystery beyond our understanding. It is inscrutable or indefinable (Anirvachaniya). Brahman is not affected a bit by the illusion, just as a juggler is not affected by the illusion he produces. Just as a writer of a drama projects his own thoughts when he writes down the scenes in various acts, so also Brahman has projected this universe by mere will. This theory or doctrine of Sankara is known as Vivarta Vada or Maya Vada or Anirvachaniya Khyati Vada. A tree or dog or rose is a Vivarta or Brahman, just as an earring or bracelet is a Vivarta or apparent modification of gold. The generic character of a cow which was previously observed in a black cow, again presents itself to consciousness in a white cow, or when Jackson whom you first saw in Madras, again appears before you at Calcutta. These are cases of recognition where the objects previously observed again present themselves to your senses, whereas in mere remembrance the object previously perceived is not in renewed contact with the senses. Mere remembrance operates in the case of Adhyasa, as when you mistake mother-of-pearl for silver which is at the time not present in it but as a mere superimposition only. The aim of Vedantic Sadhana is to destroy entirely the erroneous idea, 'I am the body' and to substitute the idea, 'I am Brahman.' When you get knowledge of the Self, this erroneous idea, 'I am the body' is annihilated and you get liberation or Mukti. This mistaken idea is removed automatically, just as the illusory snake which is superimposed on the rope is destroyed by bringing a light; so also the idea of reality of this world is removed, when you get knowledge of Brahman. The Srutis emphatically declare: 'Rite Jnananna Mukti - there is no liberation without knowledge of the Self.' 'The heart's knot is broken; all doubts are cleared, all Karmas are burnt when one realises the Self.' by knowing the Self, one passes beyond death; there is no other way.' Man does not differ from animals in the matter of cognition. Empirical knowledge is no knowledge at all from the stand-point of knowledge of Brahman. A cow runs away when she sees a man coming near her with a raised stick in his hand. She thinks that he wants to beat her and therefore she runs away, while she approaches a man who advances towards her with some fresh green grass in his hand. In a similar manner, persons who are endowed with a higher intelligence run away when they behold fierce-looking men drawing near them with shouts and drawn swords, while they approach with confidence and joy men of opposite nature. With regard to perception, man also behaves in the same manner as animals, though he possesses superior intelligence. The superimposition is destroyed by knowledge of the Self. This knowledge of the Self is not mere theoretical or intellectual knowledge. It is actual realisation through constant meditation. It is direct intuitional knowledge gained by coming in direct contact with Brahman. Avidya is "nescience" (AVIVEKA) or ignorance. Superimposition is Avidya. Avidya or false knowledge is destroyed when true knowledge of the Self dawns. Avidya does not mean want of knowledge. The ascertainment of the true nature of the Self by means of discrimination of that which is superimposed on the Self is known as Vidya. This relation of superimposition is not recognised in the higher teachings of the Vedanta, because superimposition connotes the existence of two distinct subjects at the same time. But the rope is not perceived when the snake is cognised and the snake is not perceived when the rope is cognised. There is no existence of two objects at the same time to enable one object to be superimposed upon the other. The rope alone exists before, during and after its apparent appearance. Similarly the Koshas do not really exist. They are illusory. Brahman alone exists. Brahman alone is the solid reality. The Koshas are apparently related to Atman. Atman is without any kind of limiting adjuncts. It is bodiless. The mutual superimposition is due to ignorance or lack of discrimination. This will vanish, if you comprehend the right significance of the Mahavakya and practise regular meditation. Just as the house is different from you, so also this body is different from you. An objector may argue: The chair is outside us while the Koshas are within us. This does not make any difference at all. A very sharp intellect is necessary to understand that Atman is distinct from the Koshas. In Kathopanishad, you will find: This Atman is hidden in all beings. It does not shine; but it is cognised by the seers who possess subtle sharp intellect. In conclusion I have to say once more that superimposition is a statement of fact. Knowledge of the Self is the only way to liberation. An enquiry into Brahman through the study of Brahma-Sutras is absolutely necessary. Then only, you can free yourself from the wrong notion, 'I am the body' which is the cause of all evil and attain thereby the knowledge of the absolute unity of the Self. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx IV There was a Quora Q from a Youngman, published a couple of days back, by Narayanaswamy; and that Youngman, better than the 97, started asking relevant questions. The question raised is irrelevant as he is thinking, in a cross manner, confusing himself, about the issues of BRAHMAM, MUKTI, MOKSHA AND NIRVANA. As long as, as Tirumular said, Marathil maraindaHU MA MADHA YANAI, MARAITHAI MARAITHATHU, MA MADHA YANAI IS understood, or as a proverb, if understood viz; kallaik kandal nayai kanom; Nayai kandaal kallaik kanom, the question, is now unanswerable, to one, who had just started his journey. But the N speaks irrelevantly on food -definitely not at this age, and proves why he is so childish (because HE IS YOUNGER THAN THE QUORA QUESTIONER). (The meaning of Tirumular is” there is a wooden piece of elephant seen by us; when we see the elephant, wood is unseen; suppose you see the piece of wood, then the elephant IS GONE; that is in the proverb also; when you see the dog the stone is missing; when you see the stone, dog is missing. And thus Brahmam is one only; when the Brahmam is not you {where you cannot see yourself wholly, as you are the Brahmam} , you strive in the MAYA, as superimposed on the object; when you superimpose on the subject Brahmam, and become one as AHAM BRAHMASMI , which is one in one million, the efforts of Moksha@Mukti@nirvana(Buddhism), are all, LIKE ROPE MISTAKEN AS A SNAKE; you are in dualism; if the self-realised position of superimposition of your Jeevatma with the Paramatma ,called moksha , if at all happened, you don’t see even the Brahmam, as YOU ARE THE BRAHMAM. It means, all are Brahmam only but we fail to cognise that under the illusions. When the wood or elephant or dog or stone is gone, what is left out is that one Brahmam okate. KR IRS 12123 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorUko%3Da049_rGmbdczv-ReYALG2VQLi2iM5VZ-gThOpvw%40mail.gmail.com.
