koantum Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Hi everybody! I teach maths, physics, and quantum philosophy at the Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education in Pondicherry, India, having received my education from the University of Göttingen, Germany, and the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, India. I have published numerous papers on the (possible) ontological implications of the mathematical formalism of quantum physics. Two comments on my work:In the interpretation he has put forth, Mohrhoff (=Yours truly) has shown us a thought-provoking and original view of the way that, according to quantum mechanics, the world can be. - Louis Marchildon (Foundations of Physics 34, pp. 59-73, 2004) I was on the verge of classifying him as a crackpot, but after reading his review on the so-called Pondicherry interpretation of QM, I must say that he’s an honest physicist doing a remarkable and original job. - José Antonio Ortega RuizI understand I'm not allowed to post links yet, otherwise I would have provided a link to José's blog, my own blog "koantum matters", and my website.... Great to be in your company - koantum._________________A koan (pronounced /ko.an/) is a story, dialog, question, or statement in the history and lore of Chan (Zen) Buddhism, generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet that may be accessible to intuition. (Wikipedia) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Sounds interesting, Welcome aboard koantum :eek_big: I look forward to many lengthy discussions about your specialities :eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koantum Posted June 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Einstein said that if quantum mechanics is right, then the world is crazy. Well, Einstein was right. The world is crazy.-Daniel GreenbergerHi Jay-qu. Thanks a lot. I have quite a collection of quantum mechanics quotes on my site but not this one. May I "borrow" it from you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Its not mine its free to use so long as you maintain the same author ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Hi everybody!Wecolme to Hypography koantum; It sounds to me like you may have a great deal to offer the forum, I'm anxious to have you share your ideas with us.................................enjoy...............Infy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 My! Another great mind at hypography! You certainly do sound like a person with a lot to offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesMan Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 :) Howdy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koantum Posted June 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 I'm overwhelmed by your kindness. But wait until you get to see my quantum tantrums! :singer: You may preview them by visiting my website (see my profile). - Enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 I'm overwhelmed by your kindness. But wait until you get to see my quantum tantrums! :) You may preview them by visiting my website (see my profile). - Enjoy! WE look forward to them as well.. (as long as we keep it civil that is ;) ) Welcome the the quantum mosh pit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koantum Posted June 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 All basic principles of the universe, should (in an elegant fashion) result from extraordinary simplicity which gives rise to unbelievable complexity. Nice quote. But what is simple for some is complex for others. Perhaps the extraordinary simplicity and the unbelievable complexity are the same thing viewed differently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nice quote. But what is simple for some is complex for others. Perhaps the extraordinary simplicity and the unbelievable complexity are the same thing viewed differently? Simple rules driving complex systems... precisely.There is something ... soothing in that thought for me.Thanks again TheFaithfulStone. Oddly enough though, it is the "Elegant" aspect that I find is the usual harbinger of truth of a perspective. (not always, but usually)Difficult to define, but you know it instinctively when you see or hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koantum Posted June 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Simple rules driving complex systems... precisely.There is something ... soothing in that thought for me... Oddly enough though, it is the "Elegant" aspect that I find is the usual harbinger of truth of a perspective. (not always, but usually) Difficult to define, but you know it instinctively when you see or hear it. Much to mull over. Is the extraordinary simplicity a set of rules? If so, what is responsible for this set of rules - why do they have the particular form they do and what makes them effective? And what do they govern, considering that (virtually?) everything in the physical world is definable in terms of these rules? My personal feeling is that the extraordinary simplicity from which everything else follows - including the set of basic rules - belongs to a logically antecedent set of qualitative statements. In mathematics there seems to be a universal standard of elegance, but in philosophy it's rather subjective. I mean the philosophy that is needed to relate the mathematical formalism of contemporary physics to the real world. Here our instincts aren't all that trust-worthy, I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Welcome to Hypography Pondicherry! On the point of simplicity, I like that CraigD said about that recently. You should be able to descibe the idea on a 3x5 card with a fat marker. Or something to that effect. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koantum Posted June 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 On the point of simplicity, I like that CraigD said about that recently. You should be able to descibe the idea on a 3x5 card with a fat marker. Or something to that effect. Hi Bill,I'm sure it can be done. I'm equally sure that nobody will understand it. :eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 My personal feeling is that the extraordinary simplicity from which everything else follows - including the set of basic rules - belongs to a logically antecedent set of qualitative statements. Very nicely put.Ant colony for example. Simplicity itself. Ants need food.A simple set of rules evolves to get food. Complex ant behavior results from the simple rule set. So Simple circumstance spawns simple rules that spawn complex behavior. In mathematics there seems to be a universal standard of elegance, but in philosophy it's rather subjective. I mean the philosophy that is needed to relate the mathematical formalism of contemporary physics to the real world. Here our instincts aren't all that trust-worthy, I'm afraid. And that fact always bothered me. Much of quantum mechanics is very counter intuitive and difficult for me to visualize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koantum Posted June 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Much of quantum mechanics is very counter intuitive and difficult for me to visualize. Heisenberg once said that if particles and atoms are to explain the (visualizable) features of the world, they cannot themselves have these features. Otherwise they wouldn't explain very much. Suppose (just suppose) there is One Ultimate Reality beyond space and time, quality and form, and that this somehow originates the world. And suppose (just suppose) that quantum mechanics describes how it originates the world. It does not describe ultimate constituents, for there aren't any. If you ask it what the ultimate constituents are and how they interact and combine, it won't be able to give you a sensible answer. If you don't understand its answers, it's probably because it doesn't understand your questions. If you ask it how that Ultimate Reality takes on the aspect of a multitude, and thereby originates the world, it begins to make perfect sense. It seems to me that the 25-century old bottom-up paradigm, which takes a multiplicity (either of particles or of spacetime points) as what is ultimately real, has passed its expiry date. Particles and atoms are instrumental in the manifestation of the world, rather than its constituent parts or structures. We cannot visualize how the formless Ultimate Reality manifests the world. We can only visualize what belongs to the finished product, the manifested world. But thanks to quantum mechanics, we can know about it all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.