-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : Cl 242 J. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM thought of the mind. In fact, the central processor is thejobserver of the mind, Itis not affected by thou i or losing its capacity When a human bei g identifies himself with theSelf, he transcends every poral changes in mind acti ity and becomes part of a d of empty fullness, and at encompassing pattern of or collective nature of the central processor, nobody can gixe a final answer, but intuition feels that the observer in each one of us is the Oke Observ¢r, the self in each one of us the One Self and the central processok in eagh one of us the One Central Processor. To conclude, it is Possible to postulats that the central processor does not abide in any space, is atemporal and belon BS (oO a non physical teality and has no shape or form. References Aurobindo, S., La Vida Divina, Editorial Kier, Buenos Aires, 1991. Beiser, A., Conceptos de Fisica Moderna, McG Borges, JL, El Aleph, EMECE, Buenos Airey, 1970 Caulfield, H.J., Lu Sun, The Application of Hplography, Wiley Inters&jence, U.S.A., 1970. Capra, F., The Tao of Physics, Fontana, U.S.A -, 1976, Epstein, P., Kabbaiah, Doubleday, New Yor Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., The retrieval Jf learned information. A convergence-divergence theory. J. THeorer Biol. 56, 95-110, 1976. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., El Espacio ylagd onciencia, Editorial Trillas Méxick, 1981. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J, Psychophysiological correlates of communication, \ravi unity. J. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 227-356, 2. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Extraocular Vis} Jenny, H., C ymatics, Basilius Presse Basgq Maharishi, R., Talks with Sri Ramana shi, Sri Ramanasramam Tiruvannamalai India, 1972. Vivekananda, S., Raya Yoga, Kier, Bue os Aires, 1963, 1978, Wilson, C., Lo Oculto, Editorial Nogue , Barcelona, 1974. 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 en 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- 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 | SOOPEAROGOAOOE O02 fear were more likely to become actors than 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDPY6 Approved For Release 243
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : ClIA-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 | 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 Schrédinger 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 Schrédinger equation and that this unique type of interaction arises spontaneously, in an occult manner, at some point in RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTS 245 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! am References 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, CN. Reply to Lawden, J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 173-175, 1983. me assembly of the instrument in the preseace of an observable systems gad gg /49 CIA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1 Approve |