Interesting theory of quantum weirdness (if you're into this sort of stuff)

I felt a need to add the parentheses in the title of this post, because I realize that I'm more interested in how the quantum realm works than most people are.  

So if you read on, be warned that while I find this theory tantalizing, because it deals with the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics in a creative fashion, you might find this to be the most deadly boring blog post in the history of humankind.

(Hey, if so, at least I've accomplished something rare.)

In the February 3, 2024 issue of New Scientist, or as folks in Great Britain prefer to say, 3 February 2024, there's an article by physicist Tom Rivlin, "Where Quantum Weirdness Hides." The subtitle:

Our world emerges from clouds of quantum possibilities, but where do the other outcomes go? Maybe they are hiding in the cracks of reality.

Well, that encouraged me to read the article, much of which was difficult for me to understand. So I'm going to focus on the parts of the piece that were most interesting and comprehensible to me. And I hope, to you. Here's how Rivlin describes the measurement mystery.

At a fundamental level, the world lives by the rules of quantum mechanics. The theory was first developed in the early 1900s to explain why things like light and matter sometimes behave as waves and sometimes particles. Then, in 1926, Erwin Schrödinger devised a way to treat them as both, in a mathematical term called a wave function.

Quantum theory describes the microscopic world with unprecedented accuracy. But its laws are strange: they allow a particle to exist in multiple places at once, for instance. We never see these odd effects in the classical, everyday world. So, what is happening?

When physicists considered this question over the years, they often thought about measurements. No matter how many places an electron was in before being detected, once it is measured, we only ever see it in one place. Somehow, the act of measurement snaps the wave-like cloud of possibilities into a point-like reality with a defined position.

This has been shown time and again in experiments. The process seems to be random and instantaneous, but physicists like me aren’t completely satisfied with that, since nothing else acts this way.

One approach to resolving the measurement problem, or mystery, is that when a measurement is made, consciousness somehow collapses the many possibilities in the wave function into a single actuality. New Age types love this conception, since they construe it as "we humans create reality." 

That doesn't make sense, though. Following the big bang, there's no way any form of consciousness as we know it could have existed for a long time. Yet stars and galaxies formed in accord with the laws of physics, which are founded on quantum mechanics at the most elemental level. 

And if a machine measures a quantum phenomenon, is this really undetermined until a conscious being is aware of the measurement? That doesn't make sense either.

Another popular way of dealing with the measurement problem is that actually there isn't any collapse of the wave function when a quantum entity is measured. Instead, all possibilities exist in a rapidly expanding, near infinite collection of branching realities.

This is called the Many Worlds hypothesis, in which we are only aware of a single outcome, while each of the other possibilities exist in other realms of reality. Such is clean and simple, but it seems highly unlikely (unless you're a professional physicist who likes the elegance of the hypothesis).

Then there's the approach put forward by Rivlin and his colleagues. He observes:

To make things more complicated, it has been clear since experiments in the 1970s that measurements don’t just happen on lab benches. Even stray air molecules hitting electrons can “measure” them and destroy their quantumness.

We call this process decoherence, and it explains why we don’t see quantum effects at everyday scales: once something gets big enough, there are too many other objects flying around that can “measure” it and upset its delicate quantum properties. But the same question still applies: how precisely does this process happen?

Naturally Rivlin is going to answer his own question.  I like his approach. It doesn't elevate consciousness into some sort of quantum measurement Must Have, nor does it posit near-infinities of Many Worlds that come into being every time a measurement occurs. 

His theory is called MEH: the measurement equilibration hypothesis. As Rivlin says elsewhere in the article, "the mathematics behind this process is complicated." Thankfully, when described in words, MEH is quite understandable.

MEH describes measurement as a process where a quantum system interacts with a measuring device. A “device” could be anything that interacts with the quantum object, not just what we would typically think of as a measuring device.

This spreads information into the device, until an equilibrium of information is reached between the system and the device. The bigger the device, the more places there are for the quantum information to hide, making it harder to get that information back – but never impossible.

How would this work in practice? Let’s take the simple example of a particle in a cloud of many different locations at once. Before a detector measures that particle’s position, there is information about all of the potential places it could have been detected.

When the detector comes into contact with the particle, these pieces of information mix into the particles of the detector. We think this spreading process somehow “broadcasts” information from the system, making the information about its classical position available to read but its “two-places-at-once” information harder to spot.

Rivlin discusses some philosophical implications of the theory.

So far, we have remained agnostic about what this idea means for any of the philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics. But our ideas do brush up against these concepts. For instance, MEH explains what happens to all the measurement outcomes you don’t see – the other “worlds” of the many-worlds idea.

They are all still here in our world; we just can’t control the quantum system finely enough to observe them. “If we could grab hold of every single electron and control them in whatever manner we wanted, we wouldn’t be asking ourselves why the particle went left or right,” says Lock. “The idea of measurement becomes moot.”

This would remove much of the supposed mystique from wave function collapse, since measurement only seems mysterious when we overlook just how difficult it is in practice. As Lock puts it, it is about asking: “How do I, an inaccurate, ape-sized lump-thing, try to access something as finely detailed as the spin of an electron?”

It would also rule out the idea that collapse is a physical process that deletes information, and that there is some harsh transition between classical and quantum realities. “Nobody forces you to make the classical world different from the quantum one,” says Schmiedmayer. “All you can say is that, in the classical world, the complexity is too big. I just can’t see the quantum part.”

Well, if you've read this blog post this far, to the end, at the least you've got some ideas to share next time you're at a party and someone you really don't want to talk to tries to engage you in conversation. Tell them, "I'm so glad you're here; I've been wanting to discuss a new theory of how quantum measurements occur." 

(This should get rid of them almost right away. Unless they turn out to be a physicist. Then you have a problem.)

Comments

[777 -v]

mu 2 cents
An Italian grandmother jumped out of her window and lifted
a 30 Ton carrier and freed her grandson
Many hard corpsed guys together had failed

Blessings, prayer, hypnoses & voodoo can work, depending on consciousness of the actor.

Quantum Entanglement is a fantastic phenomenon
The best way to get it working is intense Love
or hate
We can see the workings by stopping our
Inner Dialogue > 20 seconds which is not easy.
Hence the greatness of Masters using say Quantum Love
to attract the willing
Their repetition accumulates the Love
but not forcibly the understanding of QUBITS

All this has very much to do
with our ability to change

[sant64]

TREASURE BEYOND MEASURE VII

At the chapter about RSSB v. Agra:

Agra builds samadhis -- bad! as every RSSBer knows and as TBM explains.

Agra counters that the interminable building of their samadhi provides satsangis with a seva opportunity. Seems reasonable, given that earlier in the book we're told that major construction started in the RSSB Dera in 1951 and never stopped during Charan's tenure. Nor has construction stopped during Gurinder's tenure. Why this ceaseless industry building on the guru's land? I believe Gurinder if not Charan explained that it's to . . . give the sangat an opportunity for seva. In this and other ways RSSB and Agra really aren't so different, though the chapter cordially paints their shabda cousins as lamentably backward.

[um]

@ Sant 64

>> Why this ceaseless industry building on the guru's land?<<

That was a shocking question to read!
I do not understand why.

In the past when I was involved in those activities that were labeled as "seva" there seemed always to be an purpose to it that I could understand.
But reading your words all of a sudden |an inner question appeared:
"But what if there is NO purpose to it"

It resembles the feelings I tried to describe in relation to the first strophe of the poem of Dante's journey into the hell. When Dante in my explanation of the poem found out that the path he was walking on was not a path but an animal trail having no beginning no end, just serving the animals to roam around. Dante describes it as agonizing.

What do you think what it means when it turns out that an activity is meaningless

[Jim Sutherland]

@sant64,…Agra books and Gurus explain the Sant Mat Philosophy better than RSSB books, and Gurus, but the Idolatry and guru worship of Agra Masters are a turn off,….for me, at least. Such as tasting the Guru’s “Chranamit” , which is water from his foot washing and spiting bucket, and many other such over the top things. After reading the 5 Volume set of “Conversations with various Americans” several times, easily persuaded me away from Agra Soamibagh group to RSSB MASTERS, in spite of Soamibagh being the patent group, but with out a bonified Living Master since the last one died in 1946. ( Babuji) Their Council , is similar to the Protestant Deacon Boards.

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland

Just read some pages in the DASBODHA from Shri Samartha Ramdas. It can be founf online as PDF. Going through it you will find whatever there is to be known about the relation between guru and disciple.

It has become my understanding that we here in the west have no idea whatsoever what it is all about as we have no Idea about the the teachings of indigenous people all over the planet ...it is so deep rooted in Indian culture and history that one has to be Indian to grasp it.

The same is with being american ..without understanding the motives of the [religious] founding fathers., the culture where they were raised in in Europe et etc it is difficult to understand the Americans.

I suppose that it is difficult for the "Calvinistic" English speaking American almost impossible to appreciate the guru-disciple thing ..and it is understandable that it is not their piece of cake

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland

New Guinea was once an colony of the Netherlands, now under Indonesian rule.
Now and them passes an documentary on TV about the Papua's and their culture. Some tribes were deep in headhunting. The descendants that fled from New Guinea sometimes explain why they did it. In most cases it was understood by them that killing a person and keeping his head etc would transmit spiritual power from one person onto another.

Without the believe in the transmission of power, no one would be interested in having items of somebody or consuming something of him.

Think of the ritual of the RC during the mass where bread and wine is transferred into the blood and the body of Christ. ...and by consuming power is transmitted.

Hahahaha .. in older days satsangis went with bags full of stuff to be "blessed" by the late MCS.

They do it all over the place. ...what you write about Swami Ji is no exeption.

[Jim Sutherland]

@um,…I just downloaded the book. Thanks. I’ll take a look. Yes, from the beginning, I have never taken ANY Living human to be worshipped as a MASTER, including Charan, but have taken them as TEACHER’s . Charan has stated so many, many times, in his books and Videos that the real Master is the SHABD, THE WORD , the SOUND CURRENT, that is inside of us, that is only activated by human Living Masters. That is really easy to understand, and grasp, which is verified in many Scriptures and other writings besides Sant Mat literature. So, the question becomes, just what does the Living human Master/Teacher DO, to activate this SOUND , that is silent within us? And what exactly is that Sound, and where does it lead to, if followed to where it originates from, or where the other end is, from where it projects to the 3rd eye ? Charan kept saying that our REAL Master is within, same as Jesus was quoted to have said. We are told by Soamibagh Masters that the Anami Purush is the RADHASOAMI Realm where The Father of Gurumachs are taken to, by Perfect Living Masters. But we are also told that all sound and lights cease at Sat Nam, Sach Khand realm, which is 3 realms below RADHASOAMI.
So, does any one have any.idea of how ANY one, including Masters, know how to accurately describe a place that is formless and soundless? There comes a time when blind faith must end, and be replaced with Rationality.

[Appreciative Reader]

Yep QM is so completely unsatisfactory, in terms of how little we understand it. But at least we're in good company there, with Feynman, and arguably with the likes of Niels Bohr and Einstein himself.

Us puny humans, we should take this sort of thing as a message from the universe to us, pointing out to us the how puny is our intellect and reason in relation to the entirety of reality. And, heh, we should also, simultaneously (in true QM fashion), take this a handshake from the universe and a pat on the back, for having been able to figure out so very much about stuff that is so clearly outside of our normal range of experience; and as encouragement to keep up the good work.

[um]

@ @ Jim Sutherland

I do fully agree with what you write about the body master, the inner master and what the late MCS had to say about it.

The same holds about what you wrote about traveling the inner patrh by means of the sound.

Given that it can NOT be described as it is beyond description, what matters is the narrative, the faith in that narrative and .. the trust in the one that initiates a person in that narrative..

Again I feel that we in the west by necessity deform whatever practice comes to us from the east, be it martial arts, singing of qawwali, zen or other spiritual traditions.

In our spiritual monastic orders we have the practice of novitiate of at least 2 years, certainly with the Carthusians to find out whether the calling of the monk to be is genuine

After accepting the teachings to the complete exclusion of everything else, a disciple is supposed to find out for himself by means of experience what he previous had excepted on good faith ... we, and among us certainly the analytical inclined are far behind on the Indians...reason for him to put as example the attitude of the simple mountain people.

Yes...the end of all practices is the top of the mountain

And ..most of what we talk about is what I call "the teachings of the disciples" understanding, that has nothing to do with what is taught. What is taught is not of our liking.

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland

If two people love one another in a marriage, friendship or the emotional bond between mother and child, or the bond between a classical musician and his pupil, would you use the word ...worship??

Has a partner any need to be worshiped?
Has a mother any such need, or a friend or a teacher??

Worship is a word that is used when those feelings are NOT there, those of love in its different forms and devotion

[Jim Sutherland]

@um and et el, again, Charan kept repeating, over and over, “Master only come to take us back home, not change the world.” ( paraphrased),
So, its the SOUND/SHABD/LIGHT inside of us, that PULLS US UP” we are told.
So, how can we unwrap the spiritual mechanics of having our soul pulled out of our physical bodies and returned “back home”?
So, in order to solve that mystery, we should wonder just where “Home” exists.
Ponder a couple of possibilities :
( 1 ) Our “Home” is actually our Higher Self Pod, where our totally of consciousness originates from, and exists. Only 10% of that Consciousness of our soul which is our Higher Self has been projected in to our present physical bodies, and animates us, from the womb to the tomb.
( 2 ) human form only manifests on earth as form, but looses those forms in Higher Selves.

( 3 ) What if each Higher Self is like a UFO with abducted souls, beamed up by the SOUND/SHABD/WORD/LIGHT ( taken home ) , and the formless Master within the Higher Self is mistaken for Aliens, when only glimpses of them are encountered during meditation or out of body experiences ?

Just throwing the above out as food for thought.
Jim Sutherland

[um]

@ AR

Science and mysticism are descriptions .. they do not inform about the reality, they cannot. but they are of help to deal with reality..

They are all man made, human inventions, lay overs ..the 4 poles in the ground, connected by wire that make an meadow .. it is not there .. it is man made ..very very helpful

Science and mysticism are man made tools.. ..applied science / mysticism
It are all human ideas, concepts imaginations about reality.
They are not even observations.
They are like red glasses that make reality appear red.

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland

What I wrote is just the recollection of my understanding of the past .. like remembering certain topics in high school that were of great importance THEN and THERE

These days I am more interested in the human affairs of teachings, teachers and disciples an ..natural the skeptics.
In the WHY are people drawn to a given thought concept etc
Fodder for psychologists

WHY do people discuss for years at a stretch free will, perfect masters etc etc.etc.while they are not interested in an answer.... mental tricks.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Science and mysticism are man made tools"

Sure, science is a tool. And sure, so can mysticism be thought of, as a tool; but seen strictly in that perspective, it is a subset of science, and in agreement with science (and, like everything in science, happy to itself be proven wrong/empty).

-----

"They are like red glasses that make reality appear red."

Nope. Science is not a static filter, it's not any kind of filter. You said it yourself, it's a tool, a tool with which to understand reality.

Mysticism, in the sense you'd used that term above, in the sense of tool: that isn't a filter either. In practice mysticism does oftentimes become a filter, but then we're using the word differently in that case, to mean the superstitions that mysticism comes loaded with.

[um]

@ AR

The glasses did not came there out of their own accord ... they were made and put on the nose to look through as long as it is there it is static .. that is why they go on changing them, refining them ..the evolution of glasses to look through.

Mysticism is also a science and science is mysticism .. the difference is not in prove but in prove to whom.....WHOM

[Appreciative Reader]

Haha, sure, um, science can metaphorically be thought of as glasses or lenses, in the sense of a tool; but not glasses as in a filter.

And yes, mysticism, treated honestly (to the point of being willing to admit to its own emptiness), can be science. Like I said, mysticism in that sense is a subset of science.

But no, science is definitely not mysticism, no matter how you slice it.

[um]

@ AR

>> But no, science is definitely not mysticism, no matter how you slice it.<<

Jamun said to his friends .. You are right, I do understand and appreciate your point of view regarding Laila but you should see her through my eyes.

[sant64]

TREASURE BEYOND MEASURE VIII

Chapter on Charan's humility:

The author (Shanti Sethi) tells us that when it came to humility, no one could beat Charan Singh. Meet, Charan, he's the first to pranam or greet you with a Radha Swami. Try to beat him! You can't, no one can.

Sethi then notes that many gurus demand adulation and applause and the touching of their feet, but not Charan. It's proof that he's exceptionally humble. But actually, all of this is more a reflection of Sikh custom and culture than evidence that Charan's character was egoless.

I suppose it's difficulty to accurately discern humility in a guru. Being quicker on the draw with pranams might be one measure. On the other hand, I don't recall Charan ever admitting he was wrong about anything. And it has to be noted that Charan was an uncompromising fundamentalist about Sant Mat. Many were the satsangis who struggled with the Path, and I don't recall Charan ever offering a one of them any counsel but "you took a vow to do this your entire life, try harder." Nor is Charan on record of ever saying a kind thing about other religions or their leaders. To the contrary, Charan told the sangat that Buddhism was crap, Hinduism was crap, and only he truly understood Christianity.

On that topic of Christianity, Charan authored several books that purported to reveals the "true" exposition of Jesus' teachings. These books are perhaps the greatest indictment of Charan's lack of humility and are an embarrassment. While of course opinions differ among Biblical scholars on their exegesis of the New Testament, Charan's views on that subject are simply made up from nothing more than whimsy. The guru Charan explains that his views on the Bible should be taken seriously, indeed, trusted as wholly accurate, because he is a Realized Master and is therefore to be trusted above all world's other scholars.

How easily some people are taken in by a few bows and radha swamis. "Huzar is so humble."

[um]

@ Sant mat64

I do remember that people were always trying to prove to themselves and others that he was humble and perfect and god knows what .. like you are interested, given what you write in the opposite.

Why?

For following a practice nobody needs to make judgments on a teacher, any teacher I mean.

Whenever I took classes,, both worldly and spiritual so to say, I came for my own learning. Like eating in a restaurant, I happen to go there for some food when hungry.
I am not at all interested in the affairs of the restaurant its staff its reputation ..nothing .. just to satisfy my hunger..

Listening to the late MCS I came to learn, understand many a thing I didn't knew before, things of great value to me ever since, even having departed from the organisation years ago.

To be honest I would not know what to answer when somebody would ask me if he was humble. I never use these concepts as they are not needed to hear and digest what another person, human being has to say.

I certainly liked his handling of people in the audience at Q&A. The things you mentioned in your message are in my book all the outcome of an psychological insight of human mind.

[Appreciative Reader]

@ AR

>> But no, science is definitely not mysticism, no matter how you slice it.<<

Jamun said to his friends .. You are right, I do understand and appreciate your point of view regarding Laila but you should see her through my eyes.

----------

Haha, once again, um, I have not the slightest idea what that might mean, in context of our exchange. ...That is, I get that you're suggesting now that I see it from your perspective, and I'm happy to do that (which is why this exchange); but if you'd only spell out clearly exactly what you do mean, that would help. I really don't see why this riddling! That is, I enjoy it, in general, sure; but it does not always make for coherence in communication.

While mysticism kind-of-sort-of can be seen as a subset of science, and therefore loosely referred to as science (much like [the study of] aether may be referred to as science, even though it amounted to nothing); but not so the obverse, that is, science cannot by any stretch be said to be mysticism. That's what I'm saying, in partial disagreement with what you'd said. If you think otherwise, then go ahead, tell me clearly how.

And in any case, I'm not sure what your larger point was. Maybe go back and re-state that, if you like?

-------------

Apologies, man, if this sounds brusque. Don't mean to be. I enjoy gassing away, and a friendly inconsequential chat, as much as the next man. But if the idea is to have a serious exchange and examination of ideas ---- not solemn, not uptight, but a meaningful exchange ---- then I'm not sure whimsical riddling's always the best way to go.

--------------

Like I said, not to force the issue, and I'm happy to stop any time you like. Except I don't quite see why, given a single sentence or two might clearly explain your POV (which we could both then examine). Bur still, like I said, I'm cool with dropping this if you think this is getting uncomfortable, and starting to veer from fun-chat to no-longer-fun.

[um]

@ AR

As I wrote before an lady during along train journey and conversation in Italy concluded that i was an [gifted] artist without art. This and some other things she said about me proved to be correct becoming the man that I am now. It took some time to understand what she had said.

If you loosen what she said from the issue at hand, you get a kind of tool that can be used for other issues, like an hammer can be used to drive different nails in different objects.

When an artist produces something, if it is not under restriction of the client, be he sculptor, potter, writer, painter etc he knows that once out, the consumers own themselves what was his = they ATTRIBUTE their meaning and value to it and there is nothing he can do to prevent it.

Sometimes his work is received with appreciation sometimes not and in both cases it is quite possible that the meaning attributed to his work has nothing to do with his own motives, intentions etc.

And it is not necessary that these sets of attributing meaning and value between the producer and consumer correspond.

It only matters when the producer is codependent from the consumers but if he is not it is irrelevant.

Science and mysticism, is human craft, artisan craft, art ...
What ever he does is ..MAN MADE and whatever he produces bears the stamp of humanity .. one can focus on the uniqueness, the variations of human affairs or look at the sameness......

Jamun's friends all had glasses to look upon Laila, economic, social, beauty, schooled etc that allowed them to speak a verdict over her that she was not a fitted partner for marriage. And ..they were all right. Jamun looking through their glasses was of the same meaning and value. But he had another pair of glasses he could put on and seeing through them she became the only possible partner for him. What is the gist?
what we see, what we seem to get is what we made before by putting on glasses to look through.

For me AR the way humans deal with science, on all levels, is exactly the same as the way they deal with spirituality ...and it is no big deal to me .. in fact it is no deal at all.

[777]

Jim, . . Good comparison :
Their Council , is similar to the Protestant Deacon Boards.
Beas. vs Agra
Shi-ites vs Sunnites
Catholics vs Calvinists

Holyness vs. Rituals

Heaven is the purest State of Consciousness
To receive it
FREE. vs Ascetics

What do we choose?

Love vs Work

I described here already
what the Sound does
We experience What we ARE : Sound
The frequency of "Before Abraham, . . I AM"

777
Ask Love asap

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, um.

Ok, so you're saying that at a personal level you don't, at this time, resonate much with either science or mysticism, or with how other people relate to either of these things. Ehhh, that's rather different than what you'd started out saying, I think, but no matter. As far as that much, fair enough! ...As far as your personal predilections, you are the ultimate arbiter, and if you're sure that's how it is, then that's how it is. No further justification required, for such a subjective matter, by speaking of science being man-made etc. Regardless of whether science is man-made or iguana-made, you are the ultimate authority on your own personal likes and dislikes, always, with not the slightest justification required for it!

Not sure why you brought this up, though. I mean, if it's just a question of what you personally are interested in or not interested in, then there isn't much I, or anyone else, can really say about it; and nor can your own personal likes and dislikes and interest and lack of it, speak to anyone else either. ...Have I missed something, is there some particular direction you wanted to veer the discussion, that I've missed? Happy to go along with you if so, wherever you wish to take this discussion! Or if the idea was to simply point out your personal lack of interest, at this time, in both science and in mysticism, then fair enough, I understand.

[um]

@ AR

When I am hungry I go to a restaurant, see what is on the menu and eat it.
If somebody visits me and is hungry, i prepare him a meal.
Sometimes they like what I prepared, sometimes not.

Sometimes i return to an restaurant as I like their food.
Sometimes people visiting me ask me to prepare something again.

I would not call myself a scientist or an mystic and I have little idea how people look upon ..and based upon the advise of grandma .."Little boy you can see the heads of people you can never see inside .. i do little to figure out what is there.

But i was in a strange way taught bto read between lines and body language and that compensates a lot as far as looking inside anothers head

In older days, knights had to lay down their weapons upon entering a house ..today social status etc is the weaponry. In our ancestral house, people had to lay down their social status and were received welcome as the were, as human beings ..as Rumi sais .. come as you are, but do come.

We could converse with people as humans only and sometimes when a colleague came we could also discuss the craft of making ice cream....

If I would consider myself an theoretical physicist, I would discuss string theory, quantum physics and more I would participate in those discussions.

If I would consider myself an debater or an trained logician I would certainly debate with you these topics.

The only thing I have at my disposition is my humanity, something that can be talked of and shared with all without training, schooling etc.

The psychology of man.

Yes, I suppose that it would be a pleasure to have people around like spence, Mangit etc etc, who are all well trained in these subjects.

So , it is NOT just lack of interest that makes me write as I do there is meaning and value to it to ...like an object of art has or can have meaning to the observer or a student conversing with his teacher. in the process of developing his talent and skills.

Maybe Brian should hang an signboard on the entrance of this inn .. no humans allowed, only scientists and atheists. and under no circumstance coffee drinkers
hahaha

[Appreciative Reader]

"So , it is NOT just lack of interest that makes me write as I do there is meaning and value to it to"

Hahaha, God help us, now you've completely lost me! I took your last comment to mean that, at this time, and following that "waking up at the cinema" thing you keep talking about, you're now no longer interested in either science or mysticism. If that's not what you meant, then ...I don't know what you do mean!

Hey, that's cool, absolutely no issues. Not important, let's just let it go.

By the way, I'd intended no criticism, not in the least! I was only trying to understand what you were saying to me, is all.

All good, we'll do this another time. Cheers!

[um]

@ AR

Don't worry ... you are not alone ... hahahaha ... the late MCS one evening said:
"I do not understand your strange language of love"

But much of what I write here is to be seen as "His fault"... hahaha

Sitting at his feet in his company listening what and how he spoke to others I came to understand many things of human behavior, human mind, be they teachers or students, be they masters or disciples.. So much so that I could not prevent myself from expressing my appreciation publicly for his psychological insights.

I should not have done that as it is the worst thing one can do, that is to compare a human that is considered to be and seen as mystic with something else of profane nature.

If one wakes up in the cinema ..one is still there in the company of others anbd something new is presenting itself. Was I previous lost in the movie like them, now I could look at them with growing curiosity.

With the lost of the interest in the move, curiosity is not gone .. I am stll alive and not dead and I still drink coffee.

And there is nothing wrong at all, them enjoying the movie; not with them nor the movie THEY chose to get lost in. be it science or mystisism.

[Appreciative Reader]

By the way, um, you sometimes refer to your coffee habit in a self-deprecatory manner. You don't have to, you know. If there's one thing that comes closest to being blameless on the one hand, and noble as well, well then that's coffee.

I'd once come across a lovely piece about how it was coffee that helped fuel the Enlightenment. Here's a link: https://drewdennis.medium.com/how-caffeine-accelerated-the-scientific-enlightenment-f794d7c5c434

(This isn't the specific magazine article, or it may have been a newspaper article, that I'd read, I don't remember exactly where I'd read it, it's been a while. But a quick search threw this one up. Like I said, while this isn't the exact piece I'd read, but it'll do. ...And incidentally, I was surprised to see that when you type in "Coffee fuels the Enlightenment" into google, then you get not just one or two, but a whole flood of articles there. Clearly this wasn't just one individual columnist's idiosyncratic association of ideas, as I'd thought back when I'd read and enjoyed that article, but a widely held view.)

Anyhoo. How it was coffee that brought about the Enlightenment: Enjoy!

[Jim Sutherland]

@um and 777,…..I am curious as to how old you were when initiated by Charan? And what exactly convinced you to follow through and accept the Vows after reading the extensive requirements of commitment, with out knowing if you could ever live up to the Vows?
I was 45 when I was i was initiated, and had only become a Vegetarian 3 months prior in order to take the Vows. The other Vows were no problem for me, as I had quit alcohol at age 35, and had never taken Drugs, and was happily married,…LEGALLY, as Charan required, not just shacking up.
If you care to answer those questions, I have one more important question, that may be of value to other Readers.
Do you think being able to stay on the Sant Mat Path is more probable, or possible when Seekers are initiated young, in their 20s as Dr. Lane and others were, or waiting as I did at age 45, after traveling through the Maze that I traveled?
Also, I am curious to hear how many times did you travel to the Dera, and how long you stayed each time, and how many times you actually saw Charan Singh in person, and did you ever have personal interviews with him?
I never saw in him person, but he visited me briefly in the Astral Realm, only once, about 2015 0r 2016 before I visited the Dera my first time. Which do you think was more important? Seeing his physical form, or Radiant Form?

Jim Sutherland

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland

These are tough questions Jim
I can't figure out why the answers to these questions can be of any importance to you

[Jim Sutherland]

@um,….why are they tough questions? Unless you are still tied to Charan’s Bulldozer Chain, and are concealing it. I am always interested in hearing answers to those questions, especially from Eder Satsangis as well as Exers.

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland.

I have by now written many an answer and deleted them again.

As much as I would like to answer you, I just can't find the right answer..
I do not know why?

[Jim Sutherland]

@um, ….its easy when you only tell the unvarnished Truth with out trying to conceal hidden skeletons in your closet. You post as either a once licensed Psychologist, or possibly as an imagined Arm Chair Psychologist with out Credentials. Regardless of any answers to the questions you give, truth flows easily when you are not trying to hide from any thing or any one.

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland,

>>Regardless of any answers to the questions you give, truth flows easily when you are not trying to hide from any thing or any one.<<

That is true in general.

My late dear friend, was like the characters of whom the common people say that still waters run deep.

Most water wells, if you throw a stone in it, you will receive some sort of echo however small but my friend's well was so deep, it did not produce any reaction. hahahaha

Yet I could read him as if he was my mental twin brother ... hahaha

He had had many inner experiences but he never spoke about it. Only when I suggested what reaction those experiences had on his let us say outlook in life he would answer with yes or no on my suggestion.

The thought that he would hide something never crossed my mind

[um]

And |Jim

After the death of my friend, during and after the cremation, I came to be informed of many a thing he shared with others and not with me.
It made me laugh and made my understanding of his personality only deeper.
Did he hide these things for me?
Was he liar?
Could he not deal with the truth?
I don't think so.

And ... I am more than convinced that he never shared with anybody what we shared about spirituality and we would not allow anybody, to come in between. Nobody

[Jim Sutherland]

um,…what benefit will you get out of taking your secrets to the Crematory with you? What use will they be to us inquisitive initiates who survive, mistaking you for only your posts help secret?
A good example is of how Sam Busa described him self , and his relationship with Charan, in his book. But he held secret his hidden skeletons locked in his closet. I had a friend who grew up with him, and knew him well, right to his last breath. Charan obviously was aware of Sam’s hidden skeletons, from others, but still loved him as a Brother regardless, as he loved all of his Brothers. Didn’t he call all of us “Brothers?”

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland

>> what benefit will you get out of taking your secrets to the Crematory with you?<<

Putting these questions are like creating a so called double bind.
I never do it why do you?

[Jim Sutherland]

@um,….I think the only reason you can’t, or won’t answer the simple questions I asked you, is BECAUSE,….YOU WERE NEVER INITIATED BY CHARAN SINGH. All this time, posting here as an Exer,….you are actually a non initiated information seeker.
Prove me wrong by answering the very honest simple ,questions I asked you, with out making excuses , or spinning it like a Politician always does. Hahahahaha
Jim Sutherland

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland

If I would ask a person to prove himself right or wrong in relation to what I said, I will get an answer. Hearing that answer by itself does not create the prove for my trust, and believe are needed to accept his words as prove..

When people know one another that generally is no problem but these days of mass communication in the media that mutual trust has gone. So it ha become possible that whatever one says to a person that is anti-vaccination he will not believe you and in some cases react with this or that plot.

The late MCS used to say ...do not dabble in politics.

[Jim Sutherland]

@um,….so, sounds like you aren’t going to admit you were never initiated by Charan Singh, or of you ever met him. “sitting at his feet”could have have different meanings. Most Charan Initiates here and else where are not secretive about sharing what year they were initiated by Charan, or how old they were, and how many times they visited the Dera, and usually share how they felt being there. , II have shared my heart here, along with many other Charan Initiates , including Brian Hines , Spencer Tepper, and many others who posted here for years, and have since disappeared. I mean, asking you when and at what age you were initiated by Charan isn’t as if I was asking you the Names of your 4 wives, as if you were a Muslim. You certainly sound too intelligent to just be wasting your time posting long rambling posts here as a Troll, or a Secret Agent CIA Operator. If so, you must have a real boring life, only drinking coffee for your excitment.
Some of us have Credibility, even enough to use our real Names.hahahahaha

[um]

@ Jim Sutherland

>>II have shared my heart here ...<<

You did, unasked for by anybody.
And I have gone through it and reacted on it.

Things are what they are n....[persons are also things]
Seldom what they appear to be,
let alone how the are made to be seen ....

[People do attribute meaning and value to whatever appears before them according their liking ... there are people that have a clear vision that act as a clean mirror but these people are rare, very rare]

If you happen to listen to the tapes of the late MCS and those of his successor, without getting lost in the issues at hand, but only focusing on the asking and answering, you might soon discover that these gentleman are under an never ending pressure often ending in frustration and even anger on the part of those that ask.

How much people do crave to make them answering their question on whether they are masters or not, whether they are perfect or not, what their powers are etc etc ..there is no end to it.

They never answered these question ..Never.
Why?
Part because these questions cannot be answered but also because the problem, behind the question can only be solved by the person that asks the question. It is a matter of projection.

And .. I to do nothing but sharing things of myself with you people here.
To be honest far beyond the level I feel would be good for me and those that happen to read them and the decision to stop writing and reading here is knocking at my door louder and louder.

[Jim Sutherland]

Um,….some are Givers, while others are takers. Some only take from others, what ever offered, while not giving any thing back in return. Some come here to share, while others come here to Troll. Considering that Brian Hines is the #1 sharer,, who has shared his life in detail, and created and moniters this Platform, which I’d guess is the #1 RSSB platform that draws the most RSSBers, past to present, and has never held much back, regarding his marriages, divorce, heath issues, property, issues with his Father, substances experiments and use and ESPECIALLY, his 35 years as a Charan Initiate, and books, published by RSSB, and privately, and GSD issues,…..is a decent example of sorting out what a Giver is, VS a Taker. There have been a few Givers that posted here, over the years, most of them are presently gone , or silent, but most have been takers, or Trolls, hiding their identity, and obviously guarding the skeletons in their closets. So I’ll leave it to the Sagacity of the readers to identify what they are. Either way, don’t run away. You have lots of Company here.
Jim Sutherland

[um]

@ Ji9m Sutherland.

I have been posting here for years, and not always to the pleasure and satisfaction of others.

My presence her can be compared with an echo pit. Echo pits make no noise out of them selves, they have nothing to give or to share.

Whenever somebody shouts in it, it creates an echo.
Not all echo pits are the same but what they have in common is that one gets back what one puts in.

[Parisa]

Classical and quantum realities. Well the Buddha said, " Form is empty, emptiness is form, Emptiness is not other than form; form is not other than emptiness " How can there be an inherent equivalence, when all phenomena are empty of having an intrinsic identity? All phenomena are dependent upon causes and conditions to arise. All phenomena have a dependent origination. Therefore no phenomena can possibly be permanent. Dependent origination proves the ultimate truth, that all phenomena are empty of having an intrinsic nature. The only permanence is change. Things exist conventionally but are only brought about through dependence. Ultimately, only no thing can exist independently.