text:
Posted by Mrittunjoy Guha Majumdar | Jan 6, 2019 | Philosophy, Science | 13 |
Cambridge (UK): Recently physicists from Uppsala University made a model of the Universe being a bubble in five dimensions [1]. As outlandish as that may sound to some, this is only one among a long series of developments of theories to describe nature as we know it, using conceptual tools of Physics. Consistency with empirical data is what is crucial for a theory to hold its ground. However, physics is slowly hitting a dead-end in terms of unifying the forces of nature under a single umbrella. Unifying gravity with the other forces: strong, weak and electromagnetic. As beautiful as String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity maybe, without empirical evidence to corroborate some of their key points, such as supersymmetry, they are just that: theories. What is constant throughout all these theories of nature is the reduction of known elements in terms of even more fundamental elements. Quarks make up protons and neutrons, which in turn make up the atoms, which compose molecules. We all take for granted the idea that reality is made of particles, objects, things. We have a tendency of reductionism and reducing everything to its components, even in day-to-day life. A car is made of its engine, wheels, chassis and seats. A computer is made of its motherboard, keyboard, monitor et al.
But what if I were to say that reality fundamentally relies not on objects but on phenomena?
That phenomena do not arise in nature due to objects or relations between them but are more fundamental than the objects themselves; almost in a primordial set of phenomena that give rise to matter and objects to satisfy some causal structures? It is one of the toughest things to even visualise since we take it for granted that phenomena arise out of objects. I have lately been interested in looking at this possibility more closely and see if Physics and the Universe can emerge out of phenomena.
Barad, Agential Realism and Reality
Unification is the holy grail of physics that has been the pursuit of mankind for millenia. At the turn of the twentieth century, while man had unified electricity and magnetism, there were lots of blanks still to be filled. Nonetheless, if Lord Kelvin were to be believed there was not much left to do in Physics besides 'fixing some decimal places' in the 1890s [2]. A decade after this statement, the world of Physics was changed forever with Einstein's Annus Mirabilis or the Year of Miracles [3]. In the twentieth century, first relativity, then quantum mechanics and finally quantum field theory and the Standard Model came to the fore. After three of the four fundamental forces: strong force, weak force and electromagnetism, have been unified [4, 5], all that remains is to unify gravitation with this triad, on the physical front. However, there is another major point of debate that relates to the idea of the unification of the mind with mat- ter and the role of the observer in creating reality.
Barad's theory of Agential Realism and Kastner's 'Reality of Possibility' gives a possible way to do this. Quantum theory, the theory that describes the microscopic, the atomic, usually works with statistical averages instead of individual events. In doing so, and confining oneself to statistics as the norm, one may be missing crucial information. It is to work around this problem that we need to look more closely at the quest for unification using a realist approach. My current supervisor Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1973) Professor Brian Josephson showed that a close affinity existed between agential realism and certain classical models of self-organisation, and concluded that the characteristic features of the quantum domain may merely involve some possibility within the classical domain that is characterised by a particular kind of order [6].
Following on Neils Bohr's idea that there is a certain relevance of the context for determining physical phenomena in the quantum domain, Barad developed his idea of Agential Realism, which was an attempt to make sense of the quantum domain in realist terms. The central role in this conception of reality is played by the concept of indeterminacy. According to Bohr, the details of the quantum detail are not only uncertain but rather indefinite and cannot be determined. Assigning values to variables, due to this, is contradictory to this understand- ing. Bohr inferred from his ideas that one can never presume that particular assertions about a system of interest are necessarily meaningful, and that what- ever can be stated meaningfully is actually a function of the context, unlike in the classical domain where attributes can be presumed regardless of the context.
In the case of scientific measurements, an existing concept does guide the de- sign of the measuring instrument, but this need not be the case in general, and rather a concept associated with an agent emerges over time as the agent evolves. Morevoer, in this line of thinking, relationships are seen to be primary in that they influence entities that are related and relationships precede relata in Barad's words. Going further in this understanding, one needs to make a distinc- tion between information and influence. When on entity in a combined system starts exerting a certain control on another such that one becomes the source of information, then it is said to influence the other entity. For information transfer to be effective at achieving some outcome, the information transferred must be processed in accordance with certain specific rules, and it is this spe- cific behaviour associated with the application of such rules that Barad terms as Discursive Practice. Barad views matter as something active, and as something that configures its surroundings so as to continues to function effectively, with the conception o a certain omnipresent action as in zero-point motion in physics.
Eigen, Kastner and Wheeler
Eigen takes this discussion forward with deliberations on the idea of biologi- cal self-organization. The question he addresses is how complicated molecular systems that are found in biology can sustain themselves and evolve. He posits that there is a structure known as a Hypercycle that plays a significant role. For instance, this structure tends to be able to utilise small selective advan- tages and be able to evolve quickly on the basis of these selective advantages. Such a system that involves a closed cycle of information carriers coding for functional systems that generate the information carrier(s) next in the cycle, can also develop branches exhibiting various functionalities, with a common el- ement that allows the coexistence of the branches. Eigen's model may involve molecules, but the principles underlying his model are found to be as relevant in the context of agential realism, provided that structures with corresponding features exist. This is particularly seen in systems close to an instability, where non-linearity is seen to be conducive to structure formation. Moreover, a system that performs a sequence of changes can develop an instability if some end product is similar to the starting situation, thereby allowing the cycle to be repeated. In Kastner's Possibilist Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the collapse of the wave function is interpreted as the outcome of a transaction with a possibility. Possibilities are things that can be considered real, but are not necessarily actualized. The aforementioned theory can accommodate possibili- ties but in a slightly different way, namely as aspects of a discourse rather than something real. In this way, Kastner's transactions with possibilities translate into discourse involving possibilities.
In the article Law without Law, John Archibald Wheeler explored the hypoth- esis that the 'observer-participancy' of quantum mechanics could be the basis of a new science [7]. This new picture involves agents evolving more and more advanced concepts over time, instantiated by evolving discursive practices. To define the basic mechanics of this evolution, we start with a system that knows essentially nothing, but which can explore and learn, provided the initial physics supports the kinds of structures and relationships that are required. There is a clear logic [8] to the sequence of the incremental changes in the development and evolution of such systems, as a consequence of the way existing skills need to be operational before new ones can be acquired. In this regard, the computer model of Osborne exemplifies such an incremental process [9]. As far as the actual mechanics is concerned, we begin with an initial hypercycle and for such a hypercycle the developments envisaged by Hankey and Eigen can occur, with new concepts being established through the mechanisms envisaged by Barad and Bohr, whereby some apparatus becomes more and more representative of particular concepts over time. The fact that this process involves the use of the mechanisms corresponding to a concept implies that it is the most useful concepts that get developed in this way.
The Primacy of the Observer and the Oriental Side
Given the developments in Quantum Physics over the last century, the primacy of the act of measurement and the observer has been established in certain realms of physics. Be it the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Many Worlds Theory or Decoherence, the subject of what propagates reality, so to say, has been a matter of debate. The question still fundamentally remains: what makes the subject-object relation change reality? More importantly, why does it? If we were to believe the decoherence theory, there seems to be a certain correlation (entanglement, to be precise) that is generated between the system, the measuring apparatus and the environment. But lately I have been having the question: what if the segregation is imposed rather than natural? What if the object, measuring apparatus and the environment are all but one, and it is through what Barad calls intra-actions that the universe just changes its internal configuration and dynamics?
I cannot help but mention the resonances this idea has with certain oriental traditions. Vedanta talks about a non-dual conception of reality, where the underlying reality of all objects and phenomena are not-two. We do not see it is one or unity since as soon as that is done one has to define the object and the other (the subject and the environment). If Brahman, the not-two is all there is, then how can we have such a scenario. Hence it is called 'not-two'. Brahman is what is the causative agent as well as the constituent of the Universe, in all its forms and shapes. The most interesting idea however is that the genesis of the universe is spooked of in terms of a primordial perturbation in the Brahman; a process that led to other processes; to the 'thoughts of Brahman', so to say. This phenomena-based model therefore has a number of resonances with the Vedantic and general Vedic conception of the Universe. Another oriental school of thought where this comes up is Taoism. Today, Taoism is a major religion of Asia. It talks of living in harmony with the Tao. Laozi in the Tao Te Ching explains that the Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the Universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe due to it being non conceptual yet evident' in one's being of aliveness. It is the underlying cosmic principle, much like Brahman, that remains, changeless and ever-present. It's activities and ways of changing are what give rise to the universe, as we see it.
As much as these ideas have resonances, I am cautious about taking things verbatim from them. Metaphysics may have ideas that may need a bit more of empirical evidence to conclusively place on a strong grounding. Alas, that may take some time, since we have just begun to probe into a section of Physics while a lot of the physical world, be it on energy scales, length scales or time scales, remains unexplored and a matter of conjecture and theorising. Being a seeker of Truth, I look forward to knowing more on that in the years to come, even as I independently and decoupled from my scientific research, journey along a more spiritual, oriental path as well.
As I begin looking more closely at some ideas at the foundations of Quantum Mechanics and the true nature of existence and reality during my postdoctoral research, these are some musings and thoughts I recently had. Physics may just be on its way to have a paradigm shift, having reached a phase of slow progress lately, mainly due to empirical constraints. Much like Kelvin's skepticism at the turn of the twentieth century was followed by Einstein's revolution a decade later, we may be in for some changes in the way we see nature. Let us see if this one is what describes nature best!
[1] Uppsala University. "Our universe: An expanding bubble in an extra dimension". Public Release. Available here.
[2] Michael Redhead. Is the end of physics in sight? In Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics, pages 327–341. Springer, 1993.
[3] John R Gribbin, Mary Gribbin, and Albert Einstein. Annus mirabilis: 1905, Albert Einstein, and the theory of relativity, volume 1. Chamberlain Bros., 2005.
[4] Richard P Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann. Theory of the fermi interac- tion. Physical Review, 109(1):193, 1958.
[5] SL Glashow, S Weinberg, and A Salam. Elementary particle theory. Nucl. Phys, 22:579, 1967.
[6] Brian D Josephson. A structural theory of everything. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.02429, 2015.
[7] John Archibald Wheeler. Law without law. Quantum Theory and Mea- surement, Princeton Univ. Press, 1983.
[8] Brian D Josephson and HM Hauser. Multistage acquisition of intelligent behaviour. Kybernetes, 10(1):11–15, 1981.
[9] George Osborne. The logical structure of the cognitive mechanisms guiding psychological development. 1995.
[10] Brian D Josephson. Biological observer-participation and wheeler's 'law without law'. In Integral Biomathics, pages 245–252. Springer, 2012.
(Header Image Credit: NASA; available here)
PreviousA Moral Vacuum stymies a RaGa
NextThe Striped Royals: Tigers in India Today
Mrittunjoy Guha Majumdar
Mrittunjoy Guha Majumdar is a youth-scientist, student leader, poet, writer, social thinker and activist. He is currently doing a postdoctoral in Physics at Cavendish Laboratory (University of Cambridge), under Nobel Laureate Prof. Brian Josephson. After having completed his PhD at the age of 25 from Cambridge University, he pursued his interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics. In the past he has represented the Republic of India at international summits such as the 1st ASEAN Youth Science Summit and has been the recipient of the prestigious TIFR-NIUS Fellowship and INSPIRE Scholarship. As a youth-scientist, he has worked closely with the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, for science popularization and outreach as well. As a student leader and activist, he has been a four time executive officer of the Cambridge University Student Union and Cambridge University Graduate Union. He is currently the Chair of the Executive Committee Vice-President of the Graduate Union of the University of Cambridge. He was recently selected among the '35 under 35 UK-India Young Leaders' at the first UK-India Young Leaders Forum, supported by the High Commission of India to the UK and Infosys. He has also worked with a number of NGOs and international organizations such as Amnesty International, Plan International, WHO, Pratham, Stop Trafficking and Oppression of Children & Women (STOP) and War Child. Having been interested in literature as well, he has been acclaimed for his poetry, having been showcased among the top 50 poets of Delhi by the Poetry Foundation and has written extensively in various publications and fora on social, literary and philosophical topics.
Satyashrama: A Conception of Dharmic Politics
Satyameva Jayate, Laissez-aller and India
The Faith that never Fades: The Historical Resilience of Hinduism
alpha	on January 13, 2019 at 12:11 am
Whеn someone writes an article he/she maintains the thoᥙght of a user in his/her mind that how а
user can know it. Thеrefore that'ѕ why this paragraⲣh is perfect.
Travis Mapalo	on February 22, 2019 at 12:20 pm
It can be practically extremely difficult to encounter well-aware individual on this theme, then again you appear like you are familiar with the things that you're covering! Appreciate It
Andra	on April 8, 2019 at 3:42 am
Layla	on April 9, 2019 at 8:26 am
It works quite well for me
Young	on April 17, 2019 at 2:44 am
Jamie	on April 17, 2019 at 10:18 am
check this	on April 18, 2019 at 8:28 am
I spent a great deal of time to locate something such as this
this Article	on April 18, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Sadye	on April 18, 2019 at 6:36 pm
Nida	on April 18, 2019 at 8:13 pm
Thanks for the wonderful guide
buy proxy server	on May 19, 2019 at 1:29 am
some truly rattling work on behalf of the owner of this web site, absolutely outstanding subject material.
https://tinyurl.com/aauwi448g	on June 10, 2019 at 12:27 pm
I want to to thank you for this great read!!
I absolutely loved every little bit of it. I have got you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post…
Guqinz	on June 13, 2019 at 8:16 pm
very nice post, i definitely love this web site, keep on it


Real time is defined as time measured from some fixed point, either from a standard point in the past (see the description of the Epoch and calendar time below), or from some point (e.g., the start) in the life of a process (elapsed time).
Process time is defined as the amount of CPU time used by a process. This is sometimes divided into user and system components. User CPU time is the time spent executing code in user mode. System CPU time is the time spent by the kernel executing in system mode on behalf of the process (e.g., executing system calls). The time(1) command can be used to determine the amount of CPU time consumed during the execution of a program. A program can determine the amount of CPU time it has consumed using times(2), getrusage(2), or clock(3).
Most computers have a (battery-powered) hardware clock which the kernel reads at boot time in order to initialize the software clock. For further details, see rtc(4) and hwclock(8).
The accuracy of various system calls that set timeouts, (e.g., select(2), sigtimedwait(2)) and measure CPU time (e.g., getrusage(2)) is limited by the resolution of the software clock, a clock maintained by the kernel which measures time in jiffies. The size of a jiffy is determined by the value of the kernel constant HZ.
The value of HZ varies across kernel versions and hardware platforms. On i386 the situation is as follows: on kernels up to and including 2.4.x, HZ was 100, giving a jiffy value of 0.01 seconds; starting with 2.6.0, HZ was raised to 1000, giving a jiffy of 0.001 seconds. Since kernel 2.6.13, the HZ value is a kernel configuration parameter and can be 100, 250 (the default) or 1000, yielding a jiffies value of, respectively, 0.01, 0.004, or 0.001 seconds. Since kernel 2.6.20, a further frequency is available: 300, a number that divides evenly for the common video frame rates (PAL, 25 HZ; NTSC, 30 HZ).
The times(2) system call is a special case. It reports times with a granularity defined by the kernel constant USER_HZ. User-space applications can determine the value of this constant using sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK).
Before Linux 2.6.21, the accuracy of timer and sleep system calls (see below) was also limited by the size of the jiffy.
Since Linux 2.6.21, Linux supports high-resolution timers (HRTs), optionally configurable via CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS. On a system that supports HRTs, the accuracy of sleep and timer system calls is no longer constrained by the jiffy, but instead can be as accurate as the hardware allows (microsecond accuracy is typical of modern hardware). You can determine whether high-resolution timers are supported by checking the resolution returned by a call to clock_getres(2) or looking at the "resolution" entries in /proc/timer_list.
UNIX systems represent time in seconds since the Epoch, 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000 (UTC).
A program can determine the calendar time via the clock_gettime(2) CLOCK_REALTIME clock, which returns time (in seconds and nanoseconds) that have elapsed since the Epoch; time(2) provides similar information, but only with accuracy to the nearest second. The system time can be changed using clock_settime(2).
Certain library functions use a structure of type tm to represent broken-down time, which stores time value separated out into distinct components (year, month, day, hour, minute, second, etc.). This structure is described in ctime(3), which also describes functions that convert between calendar time and broken-down time. Functions for converting between broken-down time and printable string representations of the time are described in ctime(3), strftime(3), and strptime(3).
Various system calls and functions allow a program to sleep (suspend execution) for a specified period of time; see nanosleep(2), clock_nanosleep(2), and sleep(3).
Various system calls allow a process to set a timer that expires at some point in the future, and optionally at repeated intervals; see alarm(2), getitimer(2), timerfd_create(2), and timer_create(2).
Since Linux 2.6.28, it is possible to control the "timer slack" value for a thread. The timer slack is the length of time by which the kernel may delay the wake-up of certain system calls that block with a timeout. Permitting this delay allows the kernel to coalesce wake-up events, thus possibly reducing the number of system wake-ups and saving power. For more details, see the description of PR_SET_TIMERSLACK in prctl(2).


text:
Meghan Markle sets record straight about pregnancy with son Archie
The Duchess of Sussex clarified some false reports
March 10, 2021 - 05:57 GMT Ainhoa Barcelona The Duchess of Sussex has clarified false reports about her son Archie, who turns two in May, in an explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey
Meghan Markle has clarified that she and her husband Prince Harry did not know the sex of their first child until the birth, despite reports claiming that they had known but wanted to keep it a secret from the world.
The Duchess of Sussex mentioned this during her interview with her friend and neighbour Oprah Winfrey, on Oprah with Meghan and Harry: A CBS Primetime Special, seeming to put to rest the rumours that the couple had known all along.
MORE: 15 biggest bombshells from Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview
As she spoke about feeling neglected by the royal family, and the issue of being told that her son Archie wasn't going to receive security, Meghan said: "What was happening behind closed doors, we knew I was pregnant, we now know it's Archie, and that it was a boy. We didn't know any of that at the time…
WATCH: Archie makes adorable cameo appearance in Oprah interview
"That was when they were saying they didn't want him to be a Prince or a Princess, not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol. And that he wasn't going to receive security. It was really hard. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy."
MORE: Meghan Markle reveals Kate Middleton apologised after making her cry
MORE: Harry and Meghan cradle Archie in adorable never-before-seen photo
It was previously reported that Harry, 36, and Meghan, 39, had known their baby's gender. According to royal biography Finding Freedom, released last August, the book stated: "Harry and Meghan already had a name ready to go when Archie was born, because the couple had known all along that they were having a boy.
"According to a source, they settled on their son's name some time during the final week of her pregnancy."
Meghan denies knowing Archie's gender before he was born
The Sussexes, who welcomed Archie in March 2019, are expecting their second child together – a baby girl. They revealed they are having a daughter during the Oprah interview, in a sweet moment that saw Meghan look at her husband and nod and say, "You can tell her" after Oprah asked the gender. "No, go for it," Harry says, as his wife insists, "No, no."
"It's a girl!" Harry proudly says, throwing his arms into the air and exclaiming, "Yeah!"
Make sure you never miss a ROYAL story! Sign up to our newsletter to get all of our celebrity, royal and lifestyle news delivered directly to your inbox.
`,n.addEventListener("click",()=>{d(v,y,t)}),e.appendChild(n),s(n,()=>c(v,y,t))}}()}froomleActivate('108478', 'continue_reading', false, false);
Archie Harrison
Meghan Markle and Princess Kate's royal handbag brand's very exciting news

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
CLICK HERE for information about the Sacromonte Abbey
CLICK HERE for information about the Sacromonte area
Museum with the oldest map of Granada in the world, lead plates and catacombs
There are guided tours of the Sacromonte Abbey every day between 11am and 1pm and 4pm and 6pm. The guide only speaks Spanish.
The tour is an interesting way to spend an hour, even if you don't do the tour it is a pleasant walk with an excellent view of Granada and the Alhambra.
The tour starts off in the courtyard. The fountain in the centre surrounded by arches is typical of large public buildings built at this time
The museum contains paintings, artefracts and curiosities collected during the past four centuries. There is a map of Granada on a copper printing plate which aparently is the oldest in existence anywhere in the world. Photography is not allowed in the museum.
The museum includes many works of art and paintings including the "Dead Christ supported by an Angel" by Alonso Cano (see right), and also a collection of vestments, tapestries. Also on display are the lead plates. Twenty-five lead plates were found in total. They alleged that the Christian martyr St. Cecilio, who was executed during the reign of Nero in the 3rd century, was in fact of Arab rather than Spanish descent, and that after his conversion to Christianity, he had been executed with other Spanish Christians by the Romans.
Doubts were raised about the authenticity of these "books" and they were condemned by the Pope in 1682. However, the dispute continued in the 18th century as a result of the discoveries made in the Alcazaba of Granada. They were sent to Madrid and then Rome to be studied, and it was decided that they were not genuine and that they should be destroyed. It was not in the Church's interests to say that the relics of the martyrs were not genuine, however, as at a time when faith in the Catholic doctrine was declining: by displaying them glass cases, large donations could be guaranteed.
After the museum there is a tour of the church and then the underground catacombs. The church is a popular place to get married. If you are looking for an interesting place to get married this could fit the bill.
The view is impressive and there are often amazing sunsets.