Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00521)

The complete original of the following post is on 
Theos-1, Nov 16 

In the Theos-1 version of this post I asked Gerald: could 
you kindly please update me, Gerald, if you have 
changed your mind and prefer not to be quoted in some 
ways, places? He responded with: <<Mauri, as long as I 
am quoted properly and given credit for what I actually 
wrote, you (and anyone else) can quote me on other lists 
all you want. Jerry S.>>

On Theos-1, Somebody wrote: <<< >>> (I don't have 
Somebody's permission to quote)

Gerald responded: <<. . . this experiment was done 
many years ago with photons (which are chargless, not 
protons which have a positive charge). It was discovered 
that with a single hole, the photons acted like particles 
and produced a single dot on the plate. But with two 
holes, the photons acted like a wave and produced a 
wave pattern on the plate. The big question that has not 
yet been answered is, How do the photons know in 
advance whether there will be one hole or two, and how 
can a photon be both a particle and a wave? This is the 
quantum expression of the basic duality of matter. The 
standard answer from the Quantum experts is "Matter 
behaves differently according to how it is observed." 

Somebody: <<< >>>

Gerald: <<This is also a fallout from quantum physics, 
and is called the many worlds interpretation. The 
mathematics of quantum physics suggests that all 
possible worlds are existing simultaneously, but that we 
only observe one. Few experts buy this, but it does 
explain the math.>>


<<<< >>>>

Gerald:<<<Photons have the ability to be either a wave 
or a particle. But only one can be observed at the same 
time. In the same way, the quantum wave function for 
any subatomic particle contains an almost infinite set of 
possibilities, but when that particle is observed there is a 
collapse of the wave function, and one and only one 
condition is actually observed (called a quantum state). 
This suggests that the world of the quantum, the 
foundation of our universe, is probabilistic, containing 
lots of possibilities, and that it is our observations of it 
that forces it into one and only one state or condition.
For example, an electron is actually a wave that is 
scattered around an area, and only becomes a particle 
located at a specific point in space when we observe it.

Carrying the above over to Theosophy, we find that the 
alayvijnana is filled with possibilitites, but that each life, 
an observable expression of it, will contain one and only 
one possible set of karmic factors. And we each have the
possibility of being born male or female prior to rebirth, 
but birth itself will be only one or the other. And thus 
rebirth is a collpase of the alayvijana into a specific 
human being. Jerry S.>>>>>. 
================

I'm wondering whether/how "Leon, Dallas, etc" (or 
"some ULT'ers," say, as per possible tendencies to 
hypothesize along those lines, words . . . ^:-) . . . ?) might 
interpret those kinds of concepts (as per that quote from 
Gerald) in terms of such as esoteric/exoteric, 
dualistic/non-dualistic . . . ((Those quotes and dots were 
kind of meant to suggest, "I seem to think," that in my 
attempts to sort of round things off---ie, without getting 
too too silly along the way, maybe ^:-)--- and in my 
attempts to make things somewhat more nicer and 
presentable, maybe---and "more understandable," as 
well, say, even . . . [if possibly at the expense of cutting 
off some corners, or somebody's corners . . .] . . . BUT 
(not to mention: but/"but") since, as I tend to see it, there 
are "corners" and "important corners" out there, 
apparently, well . . . {ie, seeing as "exoteric/esoteric"---if 
seen rather selectively/exclusively---?/"?"---in the 
linear/logical dualistic terms of "important/more 
important"---might present some apparent 
complications---even confusions, in some quarters, 
maybe?--- as possibly from the direction of such as 
"Leon/Dallas, etc", say, as per numerous past instances 
on these lists [[or "is it just me"?]]. . . well . . . so . . . ^:-) . 
. . what can I say . . . })) 

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS In Leon's case, what with his beard, hat, and . . . 
well, it occurred to me that if he ever gets stumped, he 
might come across something like : <^\:-|> . . . maybe . 
.. ? But for all I know he might be left handed, among 
other things

PPS Hey, Gerald, mind if I post this post on Theos Talk, 
because I think you used what Leon might call "the 
laguage of this age," and I'm wondering how/whether
"Leon, Dallas, etc" (or "some ULT'ers," say, as per 
possible tendencies to hypothesize along those kinds of 
lines or words . . . ^:-) . . . ?) might interpret those types 
of concepts (as per that quote from Gerald) in terms of 
such as esoteric/exoteric, dualistic/non-dualistic . . . 
((Those quotes and dots were kind of "meant to suggest," 
"I seem to think," that in my attempts to sort of round 
things off---ie, without getting too too silly along the way, 
maybe ^:-)--- and in my attempts to make things 
somewhat more nicer and presentable, maybe---and 
"more understandable," as well, say, even . . . [if 
possibly at the expense of cutting off some corners, or 
somebody's corners . . .] . . . BUT (not to mention: 
but/"but") since, as I tend to see it, there are "corners" 
and "important corners" out there, apparently, well . . . 
{ie, seeing as "exoteric/esoteric"---if seen rather 
selectively/exclusively---?/"?"---in the linear/logical 
dualistic terms of "important/more important"---might 
present some apparent complications---even confusions, 
maybe?--- as possibly from the direction of such as 
"Leon/Dallas, etc", say, as per numerous past instances 
on these lists [[or "is it just me"?]]. . . well . . . so . . . ^:-) . 
. . what can I say . . . }))