“Internally” observed and “Externally” observed
Many questions arise when we talk about “observables”. First and foremost “what is an observable?” which inherently begs to ask “What can I really observe?” But, even more inherent question in all of this is that which we automatically assume. “What is the observer?” For example when we talk about an “observer” in quantum physics the question is “who or what is an observer? How do we define it?” We assume that “a piece of equipment” is the observer. Should an observer be a complex equipment such as a camera or a telescope or prisms or any such equipments that we design? Aren’t these designed because “we as humans” need a certain level of information equivalent to our understanding to digest the knowledge? Hence, we have created an equipment that records the information in “human understandable format”?
As I have indicated before when we look at the double slit experiment where a stream of photons is passed through slits onto a wall, the pattern of waves is formed. So, “why would we not call the wall on which the photons are projected, or the slits through which the photons are passed through, observers?” The question we simply have to ask ourselves is “Is the observer present for me to understand or should the observer be w.r.t the quantum particle?” The unerring answer has to be that the observer is for the “quantum particle”, because it is the “quantum particle’s behaviour that are changing” w.r.t the observer. That we need certain information to make sense and describe it has nothing to do what-so-ever to the quantum particle’s behaviour. It should also be noted that by forcibly studying a certain property of the particle, a property that we have derived theoretically and creating an observer to measure it, we have just simply modified the particle’s behaviour to accommodate a value for that property also. So, it comes back to the original inherent very basic questions “What is an observable? What is an observer? and What can be observed?”
When we try to answer these questions using modern science, we make the mistake of looking at things around us as “already split into various divisions” of observables. For example we already have split reality as “trees”, “tables”, “house” or “photon”, “atom”, “molecule”, “neutrino” and so on and then want to study their properties or want to “split it into particles” for example when trying to study using the LHC experiments. This is because we have taken our created models, internal to us, for granted. This model is the one that splits and gives us a meaning to the various observations that we make. If we really need to study the underlying truth, we need to compensate for our internal analytical models, not take what we have created using it as given. Like I have always said, we should “never forget” that we are looking at an underlying “enormous extent of un-ordered, un-manifested, continuous indeterminate truth” that is appearing to us as this reality due to something that is happening in that “continuous indeterminate truth”. When we look at it from this perspective, “a continuous, unbroken stream of indeterminate” is all that we can assume. We need then to ask ourselves, how does this “continuous stream” get split into observables, rather than assuming it is already discrete and then trying to unify those various split observables into a continuous stream.
Why is this important? It is important to understand the concept of observers. It is in this continuous stream there is a way in which a split occurs and “one split” is observing “other splits that are visible to it”, around it (again, this should not be seen as a space, but just as some form of distance and direction in that enormous indeterminate). Then, the first split is the observer and the other splits it can “observe” are the “observables” and the “model and conclusion” formed by the “first split” for itself to create meaning of the other splits, is an “observation”. What is also intriguing to note here is that the reason there is a split in the first place is also because “the first split” observing itself, was able to create a model that returned a meaning of “internal to itself” and “external to itself” when observing. Such an observation is what I call “internally observed”. An observation of splits and the properties of its own split and the other splits.
Now, coming to what is being observed in these splits? That is simply the changes. When I was describing the minA Rashi, I made the mistake of “moving” the division rather than the moving the underlying continuous stream. As I had questioned even in the blog “In which direction am I moving?”, I had assumed that “I” am the movable and the underlying truth with all its variations is immovable. But in-fact the other way should also give a similar effect but with a much optimal and better result, i.e., the “shakti at a given region remains constant while the raw-data is streaming across or moving across this region and hence the variation is being detected by shakti”. When we have such a “shakti” observing the changes in the underlying truth and classifying that changing truth into a meaning of internal to itself and external to itself, then we have an observer, observed and an observation. This is internally observed, one that we do not consciously realise or see, but only see as the meaning that we have associated to that which is observed by the shakti. In such an observation, motion and actions and thoughts have a totally different perspective.
Once, such an “internally observed observer” is transformed to create this reality around us with light, sound, wave related images, sound and other light observables, we appear to be able to also observe these transformations externally along with their internal representations that is already observed internally. These appearances observed using the sense organs is what I call “the externally observed” i.e., the images using eyes, sound using ears and so on. These along with the internally observed then becomes the input to the models that we create internally to classify and run intelligence algorithms on. Thus we find many a time all the external parameters observed seem to have completely changed, but, we can still recognise and know it to be the same. We would have observed this with street junctions. If we live in a house for a long time, you can return back to the street when it is in any form, demolished, modified, re-painted anything. You will find that you will recognise the street and the house you lived in and be able to actually see the difference and understand the changes that has been made when compared to when you lived there.
The implication of this is pretty huge. What it really implies is that every concept, every description, every observable that we describe or use, has two parts to it. The internally represented, not transformed part and the externally represented or external appearance which is the transformed version of it. So, if we talked about motion, there are two which we need to consider, the external appearance of motion and the internal representation that translates to motion. To be understood that the internally observed movement is completely different from the externally observed motion that we talk about. Concepts such as distance, direction, dimensions also have different representations in the internal and the external observations. The external observations are just appearance that are translated versions of some internal observations and hence has to be examined, studied and explained from internal to the external to understand a concept fully. Only then will we be able to completely use it in a technology that is effective in controlling the reality around us without any inadvertent effects. Till then, the only thing that we can do is change reality without understanding what we are doing and keep generating garbage or changing other parameters inadvertently such as the climate without even knowing that we have changed it until it is too late.