Jada Jada Bheda QA

How is jaDa-jaDa bedha defined?

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (KT)

<Begin Quote

Otoh, Dvaita not only sees that the atoms of the human body are different from those of the glass, but also that every atom of that glass is different from every other atom of the same glass (no matter how alike they are).

<End Quote

I am curious to know how exactly is 'different' defined here.

KT: It is in simplistic terms “bheda”. The existence of one is not dependent on the other.

In PP and PL (PramaNa Laxana), a simple example is given. If we take cow A and cow B, one may get confused thinking “since gotva is always gotva, the gotva in cow A is same as gotva in cow B”. Bur that is not the case. Even if cow A dies and so gotva in it is destroyed, the gotva in cow B is unaffected.

Otoh, all the gotvas in all the cows are dependent on Paramatma, but they have separate existences from each other.

When ever we talk of “separate” or “bheda”, we must qualify these terms. Otherwise they are vague. That is why I wrote “different * from every other *...”.

In physics the established theory is that two atoms (we can take two electrons/protons or any two elementary particles) of the same element are in no way different.

KT: It seems that “sAdR^iShya” has been confused with “abheda”.

If there is “abheda”, there should have been only one atom(I don't mean one kind of atom). But definitely, one doesn't say that there is only one atom in the universe.

In fact, theories assuming that the particles are distinguishable makes wrong predictions.

KT: It may not be distinguishable for humans. But certainly they are distinguishable for God. Right? That is where the visheSha plays the role. The difference is inherently present in the object itself.

And understanding the fact that these particles were fundamentally indistinguishable was an important step that led to advances in quantum mechanics.

KT: The very statement using the term “indistinguishable” and”particles” (plural) clearly indicates “multiplicity”.

QM is seeing “multiplicity” as well. If QM does not see multiplicity, it could not have progressed even one inch.

The predictions of these theories have been extremely well verified in experimental set up.

KT: No one is denying multiplicity and no one is denying”similarity”. The experimental setup and QM does accept and has to accept “multiplicity”, otherwise it collapses.

So restate my questions: How do we define being different here?

KT: It is simple “bheda”. Even if one is “made to vanish” (not by us, but say by God – not that He would do that), the existence of the other is unaffected.

And is this difference testable?

KT: Yes it is. The entire QM and its setup is testing and verifying it.

How? By your own statement “these particles are fundamentally indistinguishable”. One will never use an expression “Devadatta is indistinguishable from Devadatta.”

The terms “indistinguishable” and “non-different” are totally different. The first one does not say “abheda”, it only says “sAdR^iShya” or similarity. The second one is simple abheda.

So, as I understand now, bhEda between two objects can be because of: (I) Their different properties (ii) Multiplicity: meaning one can exist independent of existence of the other. (is there a better formulation/wording?).

KT: I don't see the split. Isn't the existence of one irrespective of the other is also a property? Suppose A and B are two atoms.

Among other properties, one more common property is that both A and B are dependent for their existence on God. One difference is that A does not depend on B for its existence and B does not depend on A for its existence.

So let's get back to the case of elementary particles (for example – an electron and an electron).

Criteria (ii) holds by default. So they are different – if we consider multiplicity.

KT: As explained above, multiplicity itself accounts for difference in the property of existence.

The difference is inherently present in the object itself.

When we say the difference is inherently present in the object itself, I am thinking this corresponds to (I). If I were to restate the above statement: each electron has a unique property that is different from all other electrons in the universe.

If so – the answer is no.

KT: Here by properties, you are thinking of “number of electrons,velocity of orbiting electron, size of an atom, frequencies of light in 'particular' emission spectrum, etc.”. Isn't there the property of their own existences?

Meaning there is no way humans can find difference between two electrons.

KT: That is a shortcoming in humans. Who knows? May be after a lot more advance in science, the humans may be able to find some way of noting the difference. Even if that were not the case, still, it is a shortcoming in humans.

(One obvious way of distinction is that they are separated in space and time. But it's possible to construct experiments where in two particles can get 'smeared one over the other' at the same time).

KT: We don't even have to go that far. Even in a crude sense, as I mentioned in one of my earlier postings, the same space can be shared by a transparent glass prism, light and space.

Still prism, light and space are different. Similarly, even when one particle is 'smeared over the other', the one who did the experiment himself is aware of the existence of two particles!

Can God find difference between them? Tricky question!

KT: Only if we forget about the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of the Lord. If one realizes that God is present in every electron, proton, etc. and also in the energy that is supplied, produced, etc and also He is the nimitta kAraNa for the atomic orbitals of electrons (each and every one).

Because I don't know how God does experiments :-).

KT: Why does anyone do an experiment -

One knows a few things, has a theory to know a few other things, hitherto unknown or wants to confirm a few things and engages in the experiment either to acquire some new knowledge or to confirm some existing knowledge. In case of God, not only He knows it all, but He is present as a nimitta kAraNa in all. So, why does He need to do any experiment? Further more, He is the giver of preraNa Desire to do an experiment), knowledge (the technical know-how to do that experiment), ability (facility, opportunities and strength, etc. to do that experiment) and results of that experiment to an experimenter.

But if He were to do the experiments the same way as we do, my understanding is that even He can not.

KT: This needs too many presuppositions (that too wrong)

1. He must have limited knowledge like us.

2. He needs to do an experiment to find out more.

3. The difference is sought out to be only in terms of properties.

4. He is not aware of the properties, which He Himself gave.

5. He is adjudged to be in par with humans, even in the analysis of final outcome.

All this happens if we miss antaryAmitva, sarvasvAmitva and svAtantrya of the Lord and presume that He is just some kind of figurehead, who gives around orders, but not completely aware of what is going on and depends on external sources for knowledge just like us.

When I say 'as we do' I mean that he uses the same four fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak interactions).

KT: He is present in gravity and gives that property to it.

He is present in electromagnetism and gives that property to it.

He is present in strong and weak interactions and gives the strength and weakness to those.

I am not restricting Him from doing cleverer design of experiments.

KT: We cannot restrict other humans itself. Where is the question of restricting God? Thinking that He need to experiment – that itself is a big restriction.

If He were to do 'experiments' in a different way, I guess we can't verify that, at least as of now.

KT: 1. Why does he need to do any experiment?

2. How can we specify a way for Him?

3. Who are we to verify what He does?

4. How do you intend to verify what He does, be it in the same way or different way?

I think I would prefer the split.

KT: If you prefer the split then, you must retain the split. But you are mixing up ii. With I. Again.

(I) I don't know how to compare the two statements: “A does not depend on B for its existence” and “B does not depend on A for its existence”. If we accept the above as a difference, it then seems to me that “A does depend on B for its existence” and “B does depend on A for its existence” are also different properties. Initially we defined non-inter dependency of existence as bheda; in the end we see that we can use dependency to establish bheda! So I am confused.

KT: Because the fundamentals of “dependence” and “difference” are not defined properly. How do we understand these terms? We never defined “no-interdependency of existence as bheda”, but used that only to understand bheda. A tree's trunk depends on its roots for its existence, but still the trunk is different from the roots. Some may call the entire tree including roots as tree and some call only the visible part (excluding roots) as tree, but that is all way of referring. It does not matter how identical the two particles are, the very fact that you refer them as “two” itself indicates the bheda. Otherwise, you will not say “two”, but say “one”. Thus you slide into your option ii.

(ii) The split makes the concept of bheda easier to understand!

KT: Sure. Then you got to stay in ii, without slipping into I.

Here by properties, you are thinking of “number of electrons, velocity of orbiting electron, size of an atom, frequencies of light in 'particular' emission spectrum, etc.”. Isn't there the property of their own existences?

This again just have to do with if we need split or not.

KT: Not really. It does not matter.

Since I am still preferring the split in criteria, my original question holds.

KT: Then the original answer holds.

If you were to agree with the split, I think you would agree that only rule (ii) holds for electrons (at least from the point of humans).

KT: That is exactly the reason why I suggested “no split” - not that I have any problem with the split. It has to be from an absolute point of view, but not the point of humans.

If I were to understand why no split is required, I would then understand your above statement as well.

KT: It does not matter split or “no split”. The bheda is bheda – it does not matter from which point of view and it does not matter if the humans have limitation or not.

That is a shortcoming in humans. Who knows? May be after a lot more advance in science, the humans may be able to find some way of noting the difference. Even if that were not the case, still, it is a shortcoming in humans.

Actually it has nothing to with the human shortcoming.

KT: That is the point. It does not matter if the humans have the shortcoming or not, but the bheda is there. The shortcoming that is being talked about here is “to perceive the kind of bheda you are looking for”. The multiplicity can never be denied.

An example of shortcoming in humans, or a theory, is weather prediction, and that happens because we don't completely understand the system. When we talk of elementary particles, there is a fundamental restriction to what one can observe and predict. Fundamental restriction means that it's a part of the theory to have uncertainty; and this has nothing to do with the inaccuracy of instruments, etc.

KT: Absolutely. Similarly, when you flip a coin, you say that”head” or “tail” is a random function, because you do not know all the parameters like “number of flips, velocity and direction of wind, gravity, etc. and the method of calculation”.

Inaccuracy of instruments, insufficiency of knowledge or insufficiency of information, etc. do not rule out the difference that exists no matter what.

No doubt this is highly counter intuitive and this has obviously intrigued, and confused, scientists a lot.

KT: Even so, there is no problem for the difference that is spoken of and realized in terms of plurality.

Yup, that's a very nice example (But I didn't understand what is meant by 'space being occupied by space').

KT: Even though the air might have been replaced, the space defined by the space coordinates is still intact.

...God knows the different properties, but we can't, can be considered equivalent to the real omnipotent etc etc God and for whom no laws of nature as we know apply. One can argue that even this seems to have lot of assumptions and presuppositions, if we don't consider agamas as pramana.

KT: If we don't consider agamas as pramana, then our concept of God is not much different from that of a caveman. If we accept God from Agamas, then we must also accept the notion of God as given in there. If we don't accept such God, the assumptions and presuppositions will be many times more. “Why should the electrons be in the orbital around nucleus?”, “Why should the planets be the way they are?”, etc. and in each case one must keep on answering “that is the property” or the like.