Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 27, 2003
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1.pdf190.19 KB
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIlk-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1 J. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM thought of the mind. In fact the cent l , ra processor is fl It is not affected by thought, emotion, pleasure or pai nature to be able to t i est fy all these changes in mind's a er . or Incinn it s When a human bei identifieslhimself with the and all r l i e at ve and tem ral changes in mind act kind of h unc angeable sile a from whence experi miraculous h appenings stan ing out from a gro the same tim f e orming part o an immense an rel ti a onships. To the question a out the indivi ce t l n ra processor, nobody can gi a final ans ob server in each one of us is the O e Observ One S lf e and the central processo in ea To conclude, it is possible to postulate tea abide i n any space, is atemporal and belon References Aurobindo, S., La Vida Divina, Editorial Kier, Beiser, A., Conceptos de Fisica Moderna, McG Rnraes r t ci . ~ _ , E_ -_ au field H .J., r.u Sun, The Application of H,1 Capra_ F The T.,,. n,_ of s yioeroaum, J., The retrieval convergence-divergence theory. J. T, Grinber-Z b y erbaum, J., El Espacio y la Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Psychophysiolo unit J y. . Psychophys. Sys., 4, 227- Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Extraoeular vis h a a.ishi, R., talks with Sri Ramana 1972. Vivekananda, S., Raya Yoga, Kier, Bue Wil son, C., Lo Oculto, Editorial Nogu bserver of the mind. ecause it is part of its tivity without changing elf, he transcends every ity and becomes part of a d of empty fullness, and at all-encompassing pattern of ual or collective nature of the er, but intuition feels that the r, the self in each one of us the h one of us the One Central at the central processor does not to a non physical reality and has f learned information. A , 1981. avitation and n. J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 141-158, 19 197n harishi, Sri Ramanasramam Tiruvannam\ Approved For Release 2003/09/1 Psychoenergetics, 1983, Vol. 5, pp. 243-252 0278-6060/83/0503-0243 $18.50/0 ? Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Inc., 1983 Printed in the United Kingdom Research notes and comments Scientific explanation of wave vector collapse D.F. LAWDEN In his reply (Villars, 1983) to my research note (Lawden, 1983) on the role of observing instruments in quantum theory, Villars does little more than argue that his approach to the problem of wave vector collapse is logically con- sistent. He fails to meet my criticism that he has no scientific explanation for the phenomenon. Thus, to meet my charge that he fails to provide a principle by which an observing instrument can be distinguished from all other physical systems, he states that such an instrument is recognizable by the circumstance that it functions as required of such an instrument by the axioms of quantum theory. According to his interpretation of the theory, then, there are two classes of physical system, (i) a larger class comprising the generality of physical systems to which the Schrodinger evolution law applies, and (ii) a much smaller class of observing instruments whose behaviour is governed by other laws. He admits that he is unable to separate these classes by appeal to any physical criterion and falls back on the definition that an observing instrument is a physical system which behaves as an observing instrument. However, such an instrument only behaves in this manner in very special circumstances, viz. when it interacts with the specific type of class-(i) system it is designed to measure - in all other circumstances, it behaves like an orthodox class-(i) system. Thus, a polarizeris a class-(ii) system when it interacts with photons belonging to a properly positioned incident beam, but its behaviour in all other circumstances (e.g. when it is heated) is that of a class-(ii) system. Very mysterious! Even though Villars may be able to establish that this interpretation is logically unassailable, this is not the only requirement of a scientific theory. If such a theory is to provide an acceptable explanation of the world, it must eschew occult elements as far as possible. Thus, if it were established that all CIA-R S607r9 *60a 01ie' dear were more likely to become actors than Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : Cl -RDP96-00792R000400010002-1 244 RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTS were babies born on other days, a theory which simply accepted this fact as an axiom would not be acceptable as an explanation of this phenomenon and science could not permit the matter to rest there. The unique behaviour of an observing instrument when placed in a specific environment is completely unexplained on Villars' interpretation of quantum theory and constitutes a wholly mysterious or occult element. It cries out for explanation, but its author declines to respond. Instead, he states his opinion that it is "quite possible that an extended physical theory capable of explaining these events will never be devised". This is the nub of the controversy between us - can an explanation be devised for the apparent differing behaviour patterns of an observing instrument when it is in the process of measuring and those of the same instrument in other circumstances or of all other physical systems? Walker and I are attempting to devise such an explanation. We, also, separate physical systems into two classes, (a) the generality of systems, including observing instruments, to which the Schrodinger evolution law applies and (b) systems generating a psychic field to which new laws (yet to be fully formulated!) are applicable. A type- (b) system is easily distinguishable by virtue of its possess- ing characteristics which are thoroughly familiar. If a theory of this type were to be successful, it would clearly provide a truly scientific explanation of the reduction of the wave vector effect by placing it in the context of a wider variety of phenomena. It would not be a mere systematization of the facts, as Villars' approach essentially is, but would point beyond the phenomenon to relationships with apparently unconnected phenomena in other areas of science - this is a feature which must be possessed by any theory aspiring to the status of a scientific explanation. Thus, Kepler noted that the planets moved in elliptical orbits and his three laws can be accepted as axioms for a theory embracing all planetary systems. But how much superior is Newton's theory of gravitation which provides a truly scientific explanation for the facts established by Kepler. Villars would freeze us in the Kepler phase of the phenomenon under discussion. Essentially, he is failing to discriminate between a description of an effect and a scientific explanation of the effect. Villars asserts that his view does not claim unique powers for observing instruments. Nonetheless, it does require that there exist a unique relationship between a given instrument and all the systems it can observe; it is only a question of semantics whether we describe this as: "the instrument has unique powers", or `the instrument-system interaction is unique", or "the systems respond to the instrument in a unique way", etc., etc. The fact is that the behaviour of the instrument-plus-measured-system combination is of a special type not governed by the Schrodinger equation and that this unique type of interaction arises spontaneously, in an occult manner, at some point in the assembly of the instrument in the presence of an erv 1 s ste this cannot be accounted for by the switching on of any known physical field (all of which are known to obey the evolution law). This, of course, is just one of the consequences of the failure of the theory as a scientific explanation of the phenomenon. The suggestion that interference by a psychic field (already demanded on other grounds - see Lawden, 1981) may account for the phenomenon of the collapse of the wave vector can be criticised on the basis that it has not been fully elaborated and it may even have to be extensively modified or even abandoned in the light of experiment, but it is a serious attempt at an explana- tion of the effect. The alternative road taken by Villars is the easy one of the proliferation of hypotheses. Hiding behind an axiomatic facade, Villars offers no explanation, opines that one will never be forthcoming and seertis to be criticising Walker and myself for even trying. The issue is still open and we shall see! Lawden, D.F. Separability of psychophysical systems J. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 1-10, 1981. Lawden, D.F. Observing instruments and quantum theory. J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 73-78, 1983. Villars, C.N. Reply to Lawden, J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 173-175, 1983. Approved For Re1e9se=/09/10 : ?IA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1