Ninth Cosmos Declaration

Quantum & Reality

Science enters or reenters the Quantum Reality

In reasoning out what reality quantum presents-scientists today REENTER the methodological certification presented in treatises of over 1,800 years ago (and it's not from Europe!)

"nigodas", and by the way, the concept of microcosms was started in 6th century B.C.

Mahavira asserted that life is very small back then, less than submicrorganisms, called nigodas. This became a basis to assess life and ethical treatment in the India religion, Jaina or Jainism.

Today's (2021) quip in Quantum Physics/reality:

Studying quantum physics and simultaneously not studying quantum physics, making a statement and simultaneously not making a statement. These illustrate the situations that physics derive today. They also come from treatises of a non-European literature of over 1,800 years. And much of that is just now coming to light which those treatises espoused so long ago. After all that while, and still trying to catch up with that!

Appearance suggests those who advocate relativity, like Einstein and certain

others, are going to suffer the snake rounding and biting its tail when considering relativity. (And afterall, most is based on 'theory'.)

From the aspect that relativity 'theory' is looking at situations from different views and coming up with different modes, approaches which develop new viewpoints by degree or scope will likewise be subject to changed facts and viewpoint in turn. This could engender that there might not be developed a singular resolution to issues.

Relative multiplicity may best describe this situation for most who utilize relativity.

"everything is relative" is not a saying attributed to Albert Einstein. It is attributed to...______, around 1910.

Thoughts are something.

Thoughts are part of physics likewise. They would be considered as an active producing part of physics, not as inert.

"Composite and non-composite entities are neither manifold nor unitary; they neither exist, nor do they not exist, they are not existent-and-non-existent. Everything should be understood in this way."

"Of the four elements, one form does not exist in all the four nor all of them do

exist in one form.  How would form be established having been created by

four elements?"

"If form were to be comprehended by mind, it should comprehend its identity. But since mind exists in relativity, it would no comprehend a form."

"As already explained, one moment of mind cannot comprehend within the same moment a form presently created. How could it comprehend a past or future form."

Another look at 'reality' from a modern, scholastic author, Ramchandra Pandeya who studied the subject from the ancient India texts in India, he commented, "It is true not only that the concepts are relative but also that relativity, too, thrives upon these concepts." He further adds, "relativity is  everything (for understanding nature completely). When the understanding is fully complete then there follows cessation of concepts and thereupon relativity* consumes itself." Recondite.

* The relativity considered in that passage is based on different criterion than what is commonly dispersed in recent years.

Hard to understand simultaneous exist, not exist?

We don't know the makeup of the backdrop of experiencing

Experience is not totally reliant on the five senses.

Dreams we also have. Those experiences don't match our waking world, and that is odd enough by itself. We usually  see imagined images through the mind. We see transactions in the dreams that appear familiar, despite that they are not wholly experienced during the waking state. Does this imply an alternate reality?

Yet we cannot deny that we get experiences during our unconscious time. They are not totally physical but are nevertheless to be counted as experience as much as our waking experiences even though dreams and other nonwaking states imply that there is an alternate way.

The same goes for other nonphysical experiences. They are part of us because we can experience both, although dreaming is a different way and not our physical, waking state. Hence, in one way, we experience existence and nonexistence.

Yet, in the dreams, the transactions that transpire are indiscriminate. What seems to occur, for any better or worse, occur without regard to convention, regimentation which are experienced during the familiar waking state. But dreams are nonexistent to our regime of consciousness. Our brain may try to compensate for this by categorical  abstraction to aid comprehension.

In the mind, we can't touch the dream but it is there and it is not. The Law of Physics don't operate the exactly same. In subconscious or unconscious states the process proceeds quite differently.

Recent science and neuroscience and neuropsychology trace tendencies of the mind's coordinative nature.  A large part of perception on exist and nonexist in coordinative thinking may be traced to the hypothetical regions tagged Left Brain and Right Brain.

 Hence a source to our misapprehensions. Left brain is largely associated with spatial orientation, relative focus, governed regimenation, diagrammatic, habituation, deliberation, reliance.

The Right brain is largely nonspatial, fluid, intuitive, prescient. apparitional, unfettered,  nonregimented, unhindered, and can work effortlessly and uninhibited on large scale.

Herein, it is presently indicated, via Right Brain, that the conscious concepts like form, no form, exist not exist etc. manifest indistinctly and subliminally. On a deeper level mutual opposites become conjoined and seem indiscriminate.