investigator is necessary part of < or is > the universe he investigates;

Krishna R. PUTCHA

to jvn, kls

Rem: this is from Krishna R. PUTCHA 3:59 AM (3 minutes ago)

( first letter )
Dear Prof J V Narlikar and Prof K L Sebastian:

i saw my friend Jacob's old advice , giving the link , to watch Prof Balakrishnan's lectures accessible on the net 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.{ dic_ incomprehensible adj not able to be understood } ; i have , on my part , a few ideas about space-time as well
... begin ( ideas about space-time ) ; things that have extension in space and time are , i think , sentient { dic_ sentient adj characterised by sensation , Archaic the conscious mind.} i.e., amenable to perception by the senses ; any one perceptible thing has extension in space-time ; aside begin Q: does light i.e., photon have extension in space-time ? please tell me what Physical Theory says , i hardly know ;end aside ; many such things consist of a SET of many such extensions ; {.Rem: the existence of numbers essentially counts beyond space-time ; the idea is repeated below.} the life at large or the universe is essentially a SET of many such ( numbers enter into consideration naturally ) 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 observe it is not necessary to experiment to learn about life , especially , one's own life --- it is enough to just live { ! } ; and , recapitulate that life ; 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 ? 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 ( ideas about space-time ) ;

thanking you for your time ...

Sincerely

( Krishna Rao PUTCHA )

(;and, my second letter (a quick note wi apologies for the brevity) Sirs is the following ...)
Dear Prof J V Narlikar and Prof K L Sebastian:

i feel Physics, formerly called Natural Philosophy, is close to our hearts and reflects common wisdom of a whole society ; and, any advance in Physics takes the whole society a step closer to the ultimate which we all passionately feel exists; people of India have long pondered the matter of what is the substratum of all reality ;and, came to the insight that IT is Brahman which may alternatively be described as Consciousness; Physics also has been hard at work on this question ;and, to my mind, seems to have concluded that it is space-time which it conceives as the canvas on which is painted all reality; but, i humbly feel it is a mistake; if in the name of objectivity we subscribe to this notion we would be guilty of having no place for ourselves in the world at large ::: it would be have to be totally objective leaving no place for ourselves; and, i think, few of us would find this position comfortable; besides, it is incumbent on {.dic_ it is incumbent on : it is the duty of.} us to admit to ourselves that we exist; we exist as consciousness; or, what is otherwise called "Atman"; permit me to interrupt myself to say that the great Buddha avoided the notion of Atman and disciplined Himself to lead to Nirvana; the step He took is at variance with the Hindu perspective; and, all of us Hindus, including the modern schools of Philosophy elsewhere in the world practicing science, have come to feel, erroneously, the objective reality can be fathomed without admitting to ourselves our own necessary position in the world; we have to admit to ourselves we exist as the "Atman" and give-up the notion that we can subtract ourselves from the necessary picture of the world; the resolution of this difficulty is close at hand ::: simply admit that the "Atman" is the "Brahman" | "Aham Brahmasmi"; it is necessary to see that we exist both as Atman and as Brahman i.e., subjective truth is the same as objective truth; and space-time is not the true substratum of reality ; but, Brahman;;; in other words, electrons, say, exist not in space-time ;but, in Brahman; while i own my ignorance, i still feel this perspective would resolve vexing { dic_ vex v frustrate, annoy } problems { such as, i feel, (.though i am unable to elaborate.) the EPR Paradox }; please permit me to state the following ideas in a terse { dic_ terse adj neat and concise; curt } manner primarily for myself ; i hope you would be patient with me ; thank you ...

[ ] ( 502 ) IMPORTANT what implications are there for the uncertainty-principle if light is stationary? apologetically i think light is stationary for the "enlightened" (.one who travels wi the speed of light - explore [].) ; uncertainty ::: think ! Q: does electron move ? Q: what is the speed of electron ? variable velocity less than c ?;;;{{ Rem: "speed of electron" fm p20 Griffiths is like 200 m/s ;and, c fm p8 Beiser is 3.00 x 10 ^ 8 m/s }} ;;;or, like Brahman it is motion-less ? < i hope i make sense > - [] please ; Q: is it (.i.e. the electron.) a wave ;and, not a moving particle?[] ; ... please ... ; Q: what do gross bodies (.consider Brownian Motion.) do ? do they move or not move ? Eh!? and, importantly what is Schrodinger-wave-function? not in terms of probabilities but in the essence ... please; Q: any relevance to Action and Inaction - consider Baghavad Gita (.BG.) ; please notice that BG talks of the identity of Action and Inaction; Q: does that imply in this context that motion and motion-less-ness are one and the same ?... []please; Rem: see BG by Radhakrishnan (.p162.); Q: has electron any parts ? Q: what does Quark-Theory say ? Rem: Schrodinger is known as a scholar of Advaita Vedanta ; also, i heard Einstein as a boy thought what would happen if he traveled wi the speed of light and answered every thing would be the same --- surprising !; Q: what is the truth of the physical world ? >. it is not thought .< i think i heard that ! ;

Dear Prof Sebastian and Dear Prof Narlikar : while i would not demand, of either of you, that you necessarily respond to this letter, i still feel i may, with your permission, request you to point out any glaring errors that you may detect; also, would you be kind to forward this letter to any one with interest in Philosophy of Physics ?

thanking you ...

Sincerely

( Krishna Rao PUTCHA )

PS: the central idea of these three letters , as pointed out by Jacob Thomas , conveying the idea that >.the investigator is necessary part of ( or is ) the universe he investigates.< is in the words of J.Krishnamurti ".the observer is the observed." ; may wisdom dawn on us !

krp