QM uncertainty principle ; and , Brahman ;

Re: Brahman to J V Narlikar , Inter-University Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics , Pune , India ;

Re: review of old advice of yours ( Jacob Thomas' ) to watch Prof Balakrishnan's lectures ;

Dear Prof J V Narlikar , Prof Sebastian , Jacob , Santosh :

i saw your ( Jacob's ) old advice , giving the link , to watch Prof Balakrishnan's lectures on QM almost by chance ; i liked it particularly this time ; i will go through the more advanced lectures in time ; this time however i paid attention to his remark that in the context of understanding the vast space-time i.e., universe at large , we don't seem to be settled { Rem: hopefully , ancient Indian notion of Brahman ( see below ) might help } ; he mentioned they introduced ' string theory ' to crack this problem --- something Prof Feynman found somewhat uncomplimentingly { my dictionaries don't list this word ; but , i hope this compound word is valid ; at any rate i hope the meaning is clear } incomprehensible.; i have , on my part , a few ideas ( .. about space-time .. ) as well ...>>> begin ; things that have extension in space and time are , i think , sentient { dic_ sentient adj having the power of perception by the senses , characterized by sensation ; [-] n a person or thing that is sentient ; ( Archaic ) the conscious mind } i.e., amenable to perception by the senses ; any one perceptible thing has extension in space-time ; many such perceptible things consist of a SET of many such extensions ; { Rem: the existence of numbers essentially counts ( i.e. occurs or happens ) beyond space-time ; the idea is repeated below } the life at large or the universe is essentially a SET of many -- numbers enter into consideration naturally -- such extensions ; there is no name for this SET in the western culture ; but , from the ancient times this SET is called Brahman in India { Rem: the existence of pure numbers is also essentially in Brahman , which may be said to be in a sort of ' Steady State ' because it is beyond time and space } ; it is relevant to ask how we might get to know anything about the life at large or the universe i.e., how we might get to know any thing about Brahman ( it is said Brahman is known only through one's identity with Brahman { Rem: recall the mahavakya Aham Brahmasmi ; and , compare the Buddha's perspective , given below } ) ; i observe it is not necessary to experiment to learn about life , especially , one's own life -- it is enough to just live { ! } i.e., just exist and recall what one has been through ; to learn about the universe , on the other hand , interactive experimentation ( or physical probing ) seems ( only seems ; i don't know if it is ) inevitable ; Q: is it not possible to acquire objective knowledge about one one's own life and perhaps understand other people's lives as well without being subject to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle { { dic_ certain adj able to be relied on to happen or be the case } } ? also Q: in the name of objectivity is science teaching ( or , brainwashing ) us NOT to understand and accept the possibility of each of our essential identity with all universe which is intuitively perceived by mystics { dic_ mystic n a person who attains , or believes in the possibility of attaining , insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge , as by immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy } such as Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Kahlil Gibran ?

>>>...end ( .. about space-time .. ) ;

thanking you for your time ...

Sincerely

( Krishna Rao PUTCHA )

{ Rem: the link to Prof Balakrishnan's lectures }

Dear Sasikumar :

please go through the letter above with the title ' QM uncertainty principle ; and , Brahman ' ; and , let me know what perceptions occur to you ; relevant to the concern above is the following extract from the Encyclopedia Britannica under the entry the Buddha and Buddhism ...

quote

the Buddha said , " There is an unborn , an un.o.rig.i.nate.d , an unmade , an uncompounded : where there not , there would be no escape from the world of the born , the o.rig.i.nate.d , the made and the compounded " . The Buddha believed in something that endures beneath the shifting appearances of the visible world .

unquote ;

the Buddha's approach is like the modern scientific approach ; but then , he asserted the above { ! } ; Q: is that which endures as stated above not Brahman of the Upanishadic parlance { dic_ parlance n particular way of speaking , idiom ; }( i feel it is ) ? Q: should Physical Theory not acknowledge the existence of Brahman even though it is not recognized as sentient { dic_ sentient adj having the power of perception by the senses , characterized by sensation ; [-] n a person or thing that is sentient ; Archaic the conscious mind } within the the experimental mold { dic_ mould ( US mold ) n a distinctive style or character } ?[ ] ; please respond ;

thanking you ...

Sincerely

( Krishna Rao PUTCHA )

Krishna R. PUTCHA
Jul 7 (1 day ago)

to kls, Jacob, Reshmi, Manoj, Santhosh, sasikumar
Dear Prof Kizhakeyil Lukose Sebastian and friend Jacob Thomas :

there is an interesting possibility that reality may only be waves and not particles ; this appeals to me ( for admittedly metaphysical reasons ) for considerations related to a school of Indian philosophy Dvaitam ( as opposed to Advaitam ) ; this view of only waves constituting reality is expressed by the Physicist Erwin Schrodinger ; and , a description of this is available through the Internet where a Google Search for " Schrodinger there is only wave and no particle " gives an extensive coverage of the topic ; i would greatly appreciate if you convey your responses on this interesting matter ; i am puzzled however by the fact of Einstein's work on Brownian Motion which establishes the particle view - molecular structure of matter ; Q: do we have no option but to accept both particle and wave views of reality ?

thanking you ...

Sincerely

( Krishna Rao PUTCHA )

PS : i pray i comprehend the complexities of the relationships between various perspectives on the comprehension of reality ;

i find there is no coverage of " Schrodinger there is only wave and no particle " in the Internet : sorry for the error ;
krp