Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!



Take Two on Duerr



[Hans-Peter Duerr]
If I had more time I perhaps could have gotten more involved in your dialogue. But I feel, that we, the participants of your group, are still too far away in the basis of our imaginations, thinking, ideas, concepts and the reference frames we use. For example, there is the concept of the field which for most is something like the Schroedinger wave function, or the probability field or expectation field of Born,

[Peter Mutnick]
"Probability Function" is the term Heisenberg uses in "Physics and Philosophy". As Bohm pointed out, this is distinct from the Wave Function. I think Heisenberg had a profound intuitive understanding of the Born rule. PSI = State Vector Substance, and PSI* = Potential Actual Event; where State Vector Substance is the action of the measuring instrument in the fourth or etheric world on the quantum object in the first or physical world via the medium of the mental and emotional worlds, and Potential Actual Event is the back action of the noumenal reality or "potentia" on the measuring instrument via the same emotional and mental worlds. The combined action and back-action (PSI PSI*) is the *interaction* of the system with the measuring device, that constitutes the transition from the "possible" to the "actual".

[Duerr, cont.]
...fields which very much look like the electromagnetic field (massless), a gestalt of nothingness, but a bit different, because of its complex-valuedness in the mathematical description (which connects to the duality aspect location/momentum but is much more general). It is, in a way, still within the ontological framework.

[Mutnick]
The Magnetic and Electric Fields more or less supervene on the Current and Charge. This is called the "astral light", but it is not just astral or emotional, since the idea of Field is in fact in the sixth or causal world. What you call "gestalt of nothingness" might more precisely be called a Gestalt of Dasein, upon which supervenes the Geometry-Of-Divinity, or GOD. The quantum field seems opposite to the gestalt field, insofar as it is not just geometrical. As Bohm has claimed, the quantum field is inherently topological, having to do with the "extensive continuum" of Whitehead, which is prior to the "spacetime continuum". Quantum theory should be able to account for the generation of space and time from more basic topological considerations, having to do with the perspectives of observers.

[Duerr, cont.]
Also the fields used in string theory are still imagined as the old "classical" fields with more complicated transformation properties and higher dimensional spaces which should be first "quantized" in the conventional way to be useful. This is the old method of quantization starting from classical analogues. We have given this up long ago. E.g. there is no corresponding quark field in classical language. The operator algebra of Heisenberg is quite different in its appearance. And hence the quantum field is an operator quantum field very distinct from the original quantum mechanical field.

[Mutnick]
I think a field is a field. A Field is inherently a sixth or causal world concept, even in the case of the classical E & M or emotional Field. What is new of course is the idea of operators representing observers and observables. The old concept of Field is synthesized with the new concept of Operator to get a Field Operator. What exactly these Field Operators do is a big question. Creation and Destruction of particles does not seem to be enough to generate real observables, since states in Fock space are not necessarily observable. That is the problem, that we still have a very classical type of observable in the number operator. What we need is the situation where the very act of observation is itself the observable. This means we need new types of fundamental operators in which to expand the Field Operators. Why should Heisenberg's unified field be limited to the same old creation and destruction operators?

[Duerr, cont.]
In the operator language there is no "existence" but only change, metamorphosis, genuine connectedness, which in an ontological language appears as potentiality, as something of an as-well-as structure. The transition from "pure connectedness" to "as-well-as existence" is that from an algebra or group to its representations. The choice of the representation comes with the measurement or the use of some imagined classical (limit of many quantum degrees of freedom) reference frame, the "actual world" in the background (which in most quantum field theories are assumed to be simply the vacuum, leaving out the observer with his/her consciousness and his classical measurement equipment etc.). You can introduce something more sophisticated as we did when we introduced 1958 the concept of the asymmetrical ground state which let to the fertile concept of broken symmetries, etc.

[Mutnick]
The "pure connectedness" is what Aurobindo called the supermind, or the ati-manas. It has the form of Trimurti, or Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh. It is an inner principle of transformation common to all. In the transition to "as-well-as-existence", this supermind descends and becomes the very material foundation for all of our supervening consciousness, which is the implicate order of Bohm in its various functions (as the Mind of the Observer and as the noumenal Back-Ground). The transformative property in its materialized form has spanned the noumenal "potentia" with an inner "potentiality" inherent in the Observer. Hence it also synchronizes the implicate order in its various functions and it is in this sense only that the consciousness supervenes on the causally closed physical world. A different material order would bring about a different synchronization (as of left-right hemispheres), but the details of the implicate order are by no means determined by the material order. The Ground State is both Back-Ground (or implicate order) and emerging Fore-Ground (or explicate order). The inner principles of transformation interact fundamentally with this Ground of Existence, which is both the quantum reality and the emergent classical reality.


Discussion on the above with Nilanjan

[Mutnick, prev.]
The "pure connectedness" is what Aurobindo called the supermind, or the ati-manas. It has the form of Trimurti, or Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh. It is an inner principle of transformation common to all. In the transition to "as-well-as-existence", this supermind descends and becomes the very material foundation for all of our supervening consciousness, which is the implicate order of Bohm in its various functions (as the Mind of the Observer and as the noumenal Back-Ground).

[Nilanjan]
There may be different schema, different lines of discourses. Sri Aurobindo posits Supermind or Ati-manas as Adwaita and its shakti where Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh (AUM) and all three Shaktis are ONE. No ontological difference. One step below is OVERMIND or adhi-manas, where ontological differences between A-U-M are real and there is the concept of play and power play between them.

[Peter]
OK, well in that case Aurobindo seems to define supermind as really Atma-Buddhi, Atma-Siddhi, or Monad, beyond the Manas altogether, because Manas is Trimurti. Kama is Trishakti. Prana is Mahalakshmi (but this is spiritual treasure in heaven, not monetary treasure on earth). Manas or Trimurti is associated with the Metamorphosis of Narcissus and the Transformation via Operators, of which Duerr spoke. Actually, the Operators are associated with all the inner principles (Adi, Anupadaka, Atma, Buddhi, Manas, Kama, Prana, Linga Sarira). Ground is associated with Sthula Sarira.

[Nilanjan]
Overmind is divine-mind, when a human being attains this, he/she thinks himself/herself as gods, as immortal soul etc. Still one step below is human-mind proper, which lives in ignorance and therefore seeks knowledge and light. Only Supermind is MIR (Mind-Independent-Reality). Overmind is not mind-independent because *choice* and *free-will* operates here. Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh, they are obviously free. And they operate! Jnana-Iccha-Kriya are the functions of B-V-M respectively.

[Peter]
I disagree with your last statement here. Actually Hatha is in there as well: Hatha, Iccha, Jnana, Kriya. These are therefore the four heads of Brahma. They are also the physical, astral, mental, and etheric bodies.

[Duerr, cont.]
In the operator language there is no "existence" but only change,

[Nilanjan]
That's the problem. Since I exist, operator language can not grasp me!

[Peter]
Operator language is about the intentional stance of the actual observer, his observational preoccupation. It is absolutely true that the phenomenological reduction is achieved by suspending that. It is a very, very good question for Duerr as to how he will take that into account. If he cannot answer that, then I think he has something to learn about his own unified field theory, for it is in fact the unified field operators that constitute the internal self-directed operation, which is hence nonlinear and self-interacting. But this should be understood as governing the quantum implicate order within the Mind of the Observer, not the external order posited by the intentional stance of the observer. Is is possible that the world expert in unified field theory does not understand the very essence of his own theory?????

[Duerr, cont.]
...metamorphosis, genuine connectedness, which in an ontological language appears as potentiality, as something of an as-well-as structure.

[Nilanjan]
Meaningless jugglery of words! The problem is you give ontological status to fields. I do not.

[Peter]
Mind your tongue, young man - you are talking to the closest associate of Werner Heisenberg and arguably the greatest living physicist. :-)(-:

[Nilanjan, cont.]
Anything that changes or subject to change can at best be given an epistemological status (Jnana-tattwic abasthan) IMO. Brahma has Ontological status - But Brahma does not change! Jnana is Brahma's field, which however is changing all the time. Operator language can just touch and describe Brahma's field, but it can not touch Brahma!

[Peter]
The Fields are responsible for change. It would seem that it is more correct, by your standards, to give ontological status to that which causes change, metamorphosis, or transformation, rather than that (matter) which undergoes change. Duerr's field theory in fact accomplishes *that* transition. Also, Fields don't necessarily change. Generally they are solved for all time, given boundary conditions. Boundary conditions of course may change, at least in practice.

Also, your last statement seems a bit arbitrary - Ramana Maharshi saw the essential character of *Jnana* as unchanging.

[Nilanjan]
Physics ends at the line where Metaphysics begins. And the line is *being-in-itself*. *Being-in-itself* escapes physics.

[Peter]
Etre-en-soi is just the classical world. It is described by classical physics, and the mystery of how the classical world is transformed into a quantum world has to do with the nihilation by the etre-pour-soi, of which Sartre spoke. It is true that the existence of the classical world is a central mystery for quantum theory, but if we can back engineer it, along with Sartre, by explaining how to go from the classical world to the quantum world, then we will have solved the mystery.



Peter Joseph Mutnick 1949 - 2000


Home