Dhiresh

In Quantum Mechanics, we have a problem. All quantum mechanical entities, whatever they are, can be represented or considered or expressed as and by a classical mathematical waves. Actually, it is the states that are being represented as or by waves. When observed/measured, the state is the eigenstate, and when not measured, the state is called the superposition of states. Superposition states, as it must be clear by the name, are the superposition of the all the eigenstates i.e. a mixture of all the eigenstates interfering with each other, and thus this interference of all the eigenstates being called the ‘Superposition’. Well, the terms and ideas like superposition and such are all from the classical wave mechanics, there is something inherently different in quantum mechanical version or treatment of these, which comes all together when measurement is considered, hence the ‘measurement problem’. Now, we bring the ideas of wave mechanics, the quantum uncertainty, and correspond or ass...

I think I found the greatest, or maybe among the greatest, biases. I think these are the greatest biases: It is well known that in statement, “Everything is relative”, the statement itself cannot be relative. What this statement implies is absolute, i.e. the fact that everything is relative is absolute. The fact that everything is relative must be absolute for this statement to be true or for everything to be relative. Similarly in statement, “Everything is temporary”, the statement itself is not temporary, it is permanent. i.e. the fact that everything is temporary is permanent, or must be permanent for this statement to be true or for everything to be temporary. This is so for the so called consistency, or in other words, for no contradiction. But in statement, “Everything is absolute”, the statement also must be absolute. Similarly, in statement, “Everything is permanent”, the statement also must be permanent. Now, I think these bias can be considered and is at least among the great...

As mentioned in the article titled, “Existence with no Justification”:   https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/existence-with-no-justification.html , Particle-AntiParticle (P-AP) is just a specific example of statement-not-statement i.e. of ‘statement A-statement B’, i.e. of ‘statement A-statement Not-A’, i.e. of ‘A-B’ i.e. of A-NotA (A-NA), (in the state[ment]verse). Now the standard picture of ‘something from nothing’ is the creation of particle-antiparticle (P-AP) pair, called particle-antiparticle (P-AP) pair production. Now, there’s a problem here: Now, first it should be clear that, here, particle-antiparticle might also mean positive-negative energy or positive-negative spacetime or anything of that sort. I hope the point is made. P-AP pair production/creation involves or implies the emergence of P-AP pair from the state of non-existence to the state of the existence of the P-AP pair. Now ‘state’ is the most fundamental entity that defines every thing and the existence and...

As discusses in earlier articles, Nothing, (Everything, Nothing = Everything,) Infidefiception, State[ment]verse, Nature, nature of Nature, is lawless, Absolute Lawless, is Absolute Random. Now what is Absolute Random? Well, the simple answer is that, it’s State[ment]verse, is Infidefiception. But let’s discuss it a little bit: (Later…)

एकम सत विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति Ekam sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti This a Sutra (quote) from the Rigveda and the Upnishads. It literally means “Truth, or call it God, is one, the wise perceive it differently or call him by different names and differently”. This might be the oldest pluralistic wisdom and the oldest and the first reference to secularism and democracy and free speech or free thinking. And also the oldest religious pluralism, or pluralism in ideas, or pluralism in general. For this reason, this deep and all-era relevant idea by the ancient rishis, at least 3500 – 4000 years ago, must be appreciated and applauded. But, taking it as the first stepping stone, I want to delve into deeper levels. What is truth? Ok fine, let’s agree that there is one ‘truth’, and that many people see it in different forms and ways. But what is it? What is truth itself? What is Ultimate? What is Absolute? If you search, in other words that means google for many, for the dictionary meaning of ‘truth’ (...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

                                      Why ‘something’ rather than ‘Nothing’?                                                         What is all this?

Can a statement speak of itself? Can it describe itself? Well, of course it seems. For example, statements, “This statement is about Truth” or “This statement is True/False”, describe themselves. But can a moment, an instant, an event, or a state describe or define or measure or “look upon” itself? For it to make a mention of itself, it should include the description of the state which then in turn includes the mention of the state being mentioned or considered. But then, this has more in addition than the state that’s been described – namely the description of the state. This then makes up other new state that speaks of that state being mentioned. So, this state is basically a ‘state of description’ of the state being described, and not that described-state itself, it’s a different state altogether. So the answer is no, a state/event/moment cannot speak of itself. If statement represents a state or is basically a state, such statements cannot describe or talk about itself either. For ...

The physical dynamism/dynamics/mechanics of reality and the dynamics of nature itself and the laws of the dynamics independent of and anything other than as information of state, it is argued, is questionable and even has no significance and is redundant, as there exists no actual dynamics at the fundamental level, much like which is indicative in classical Zeno’s paradox, independent of state. Putting forward the argument that the only entities are the states, since, and that, they are the only realizable entity, state(s) is presented and taken to be the fundamental entity and defined to be a set of information(s), which eventually is a piece of information itself, with information defined as a mathematical statement. Hence, asserting that any physical entity/property, including any dynamism, is nothing but an information/state or a part of that information/state. Mathematical statement here refers to any random statement. Any state is regarded as a “unique” set of, or say, strand of ...