Random Reflections

I have been wanting to write something in my blog but I really have nothing to say at the moment, at least the usual stuff that I say. I thought it is a good opportunity to push myself to write when there is nothing to write, that perhaps a new field may open itself up to me which is concealed by what I usually think and say. So I decide to devote this post to free-writing.

I think I have put my mind in an awkward situation: At the same time I have used the analytic part of the mind most of my life, doing only physics, mathematics, and western philosophy. On the other hand, I am inherently drawn to the synthetic language of religion and spirituality. The analytic aspect of me tends to dissolve the whole into pieces, disintegrating whatever comes in its way. The synthetic aspect longs for the shattered whole. No wonder I linger mostly in metaphysics which is the intersection of scientific thought and religious aspirations.

By science of course I mean not modern science which I see as the perversion of the intellect. We should remember that the idea of science as systematic knowledge of totality was handed down to the fathers of modern science, such as Bacon and Galileo, from Aristotle. But in the vision of Aristotle science as systematic knowledge must always contain the two complementary parts, Physics and Metaphysics. Modern science took physics and dispensed with metaphysics, the result being a collection of scattered and mentally challenged disciplines that outwardly behave as science but lack the proper metaphysical foundations. For Aristotle metaphysics is the ground of all science; he called it the First Philosophy, supreme science.

Of modern sciences I like them insofar as they explain phenomena quantitatively but disliked them for their lack of metaphysical foundations. And by modern science I really consider exact sciences; the rest such as psychology, humanities, AI, and even biology and neuroscience don’t even qualify as science; they are awfully misguided in their characters and conclusions because they adopted the methods of physics which deals with inert matter and tried to apply them to totally different kind of phenomenon, life. Their procedures is based on an unfounded assumption that life is nothing but inert matter put together in a complex structure. I cannot see how one can make this unscientific assumption and claim to produce a science out of it!

There is very sharp line between organic and inorganic systems, between life and inert matter. The whole of these pseudo-sciences is based on ignoring this impossible gap between the two kinds of phenomena. We can consider a stone, a piece of wood, water, etc. to be natural phenomena, but we cannot possible consider consciousness too in the same class, for nature and all its phenomena are given to us, and known, in and through consciousness. To say that pure material phenomena and natural processes cause the emergence of consciousness is exactly like saying that the objects in our dream cause the dream experience!

The very basic division that we so take for granted, the objective-subjective divide, is itself a moment of conscious experience. The objectivity that we so much value in science is a possibility within subjectivity. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing but subjectivity; no one can say something that lies outside experience; and even the idea of “outside experience” or “independent of experience” is itself something experienced and cognized by consciousness. Only a subject can think of a world existing independently of him/her; only consciousness can imagine its own absence.

What modern scientific thinking has done was to push everything non-material into the human mind, telling us that imaginations, inspirations, religious experiences, etc. are all in your head, that they are subjective and not in the world. And we have simply accepted this crooked judgment and as a result take our own spirits less seriously compared to the men and women of the golden age. They have created a police state and sent everyone home, into the privacy of your mind. But when science speaks of a God-less, objective world isn’t it speaking of the subjective experiences of a few who consider themselves privileged in their knowledge of what is real and what is unreal?! Isn’t a God-less, objective world itself an idea in the consciousness of those totalitarian institutions known as academia?! What they consider objective reality is really someone else’s subjective experience, the scientists.

We have been raised and educated with this hidden propaganda that the knowledge of reality is only accessible to a few with whose unquestionable verdicts we must agree or else we are superstitious and unintelligent! Their subjectivity is better than ours! Well, if we don’t get caught up in their superficial names and forms we recognize this mentality as almost always present in history: It is nothing but fascism. It has emerged in the realm of religion, race, and now in the realm of intelligence. The dogmatic scientism exercised by many such modern scientists is nothing but intellectual fascism. When you consider your own methods of inquiry and modes of knowledge as superior to others and systematically ridicule and suppress everything that smells of the slightest disagreement, then you are that recurrent fascist who always shows up in history demanding the reign of its own truth and the exclusion and execution of the truths of others.

Modern science is but an abstraction from the immediate conscious experience. To consider these abstractions as the causes of that conscious experience is a self-refutation of science because the results cannot precede the methods by which the results are obtained. Knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is essentially the content of consciousness and cannot account for the existence and form of that consciousness no more that a water in a glass can be the cause of the glass itself. I must add that here by consciousness I mean something broader that the particular human consciousness because our humanity, our mind and consciousness, our existence, etc. are things of which we are aware, and hence they too belong in the content of a more general, universal consciousness who has no personal subject; it is rather subject-less consciousness, or if you like its pure subject is The Absolute, or God. Anything of which we are aware of is always already inside consciousness: We are constantly aware of ourselves surrounded by an external world; thus, we and world with its quality of being give as something outside me are all contents of consciousness. In other words, there is nothing outside consciousness, even the idea of outside-consciousness itself being something inside consciousness.

The problem of course is not with science as such. It is the wrongful role and status that we have assigned to it. We must understand that modern science with its picture of the universe is nothing but an abstraction, however a very practical and beneficial abstraction that can in many ways improve our lives. But this science and its objects have nothing to do with the Reality in itself, reality as it first shows up in our immediate conscious experience, the reality that contains science only as one of its possibilities, a human tradition at best. Science itself is something experienced; it may explain other objects of experience but it cannot explain itself and its own origin and possibility. Modern science as one among the many other human achievements can never understand its own master, the human person, for it is itself produced and conditioned by that person. Therefore, psychology is bullshit.

Good night.

Truth & Reality

World is not something in which we act and think. World is what we think and how we act. The habit of the modern mind, thanks to the reign of scientific worldview, is to assume that world, as a determinate structure, is there before we come to it. But isn’t this thesis itself something somehow arrived at by the mind?!

What is is what it is depending on who we are and how we look in its direction. Things are the way they are because of the way we confront them. To say that reality exists independently of our apprehension of it is itself only a way of confronting reality. What we find in the world depends on our methods of investigation. Or, truth is a function of method. And method is the fixing of values and interests serving a predetermined goal.

That modern science cannot find anything non-physical in the universe is simply because the scientific method was defined and designed from the very beginning to disregard the metaphysical and pick only the physical. When you decide to explore the world using only your hands you will discover all that is tactile but you won’t discover sound, smell, taste, etc., things which don’t lend themselves to your particular methods of investigation, in this case yours hands. To hear sound one must listen, for no amount of touching can apprehend sound; for those who refuse to listen no sound can ever be known to them.

If science cannot prove the existence of God, and won’t ever, it is simply because science is set out to discover empirical phenomena, phenomena that can be subject to control experiments and mathematical quantification. But God is defined to be that which transcends all empirical qualities and quantities. What we fail to understand about science, and hence give it superior status out of ignorance, is that science is just one among the many ways of confronting reality. Science is just one among the many human traditions that have aimed at understanding reality. Science as tradition is a mode of inquiry in which quantity and inference play the fundamental role, while religious and spiritual traditions choose the path of quality and intuition.The methods by which God is recovered are radically different from the methods of science. It is nothing but intellectual fascism to give the scientific truth absolute superiority and call everything else fiction and superstition, and hence not worthy of having a voice. Truth is the function of method.

What happens in science must stay in science. We should not mix up science and our spiritual intuitions. To use science to justify spiritual truths is like using your hand as a means of listening to music. In order to avoid this fatal trap we must remind ourselves that modern science is just a story we keep repeating to ourselves as if it were the only story. Surely science works and has its own truth, but by no means are its truths superior to spiritual truths, let alone absolute. After all, science is itself only a spiritual possibility for mankind. We found science and made it what it is; how stupid of us is it to let science tell us who we are.

The Shadow of The Philosopher

Maurice Merleau-Ponty was a French phenomenologist of the highest rank. Phenomenology as founded by Edmund Husserl and defined by him as “The return to things themselves” preserved its original strength and intention only in the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty, while others such as Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt, though offered important and enlightening phenomenological researches, eclipsed the vast field of phenomenology opened up by Husserl.

Merleau-Ponty understood the method of Phenomenological Reduction for what it was, as a step back into the origin of the gaze in which the world makes its first appearance, or as Eugen Fink puts it, “as wonder in the face of the world.” Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception is a masterpiece that must be read by any serious seeker of contemplative temperament. Below I quote an excerpt from his preface to the Phenomenology of Perception which aims at waking us up from the dogmatic slumber through which we have come to believe that our perception of the world is caused by the world!

All my knowledge of the world, even my scientific knowledge, is gained from my particular point of view, or from some experience of the world without which the symbols of science would be meaningless. The whole universe of science is built upon the world as directly experienced, and if we want to subject science itself to rigorous scrutiny and arrive at a precise assessment of its meaning and scope, we must begin by reawakening the basic experience of the world of which science is the second-order expression. Science has not and never will have, by its nature, the same significance qua form of being as the world which we perceive, for the simple reason that it is a determination or explanation of that world.

I am, not a ‘living creature’ nor even a ‘man,’ nor again even ‘a consciousness’ endowed with all the characteristics which zoology, social anatomy or inductive psychology recognize in these various products of the natural or historical process-I am the absolute source, my existence does not stem from my antecedents, from my physical and social environment; instead it moves out towards them and sustains them, for I alone bring into being for myself (and therefore into being in the only sense that the word can have for me) the tradition which I elect or carry on, or the horizon whose distance from me would be abolished-since that distance is not one of its properties-if I were not there to scan it with my gaze.”

Scientific points of view, according to which my existence is a moment of the world’s, are always both naive and at the same time dishonest, because they take for granted, without explicitly mentioning, it, the other point of view, namely that of consciousness, through which from the outset a world forms itself round me and begins to exist for me. To return to things themselves is to return to that world which precedes knowledge, of which knowledge always speaks, and in relation to which every scientific schematization is an abstract and derivative sign-language, as is geography in relation to the country-side in which we have learnt beforehand what a forest , a prairie or a river is.”     

Listen to The Big Bang

There are a few scientific theories that have attempted to describe the universe using the laws of physics. In all these theories the event of Big Bang is taken to be the starting point (Scroll down and listen to the sound of the Big Bang.) How did they come to this conclusion? Here is how they did it:

In the first two decades of 20th century astronomers observed that all other galaxies are constantly moving away from our Milky-Way galaxy, and studying the light coming from these galaxies they realized that everything is moving away from everything else. The way scientists can determine this using light is made possible by the same laws that make an ambulance siren sound different when it is moving away or toward us. Light too changes in its frequency when it is coming from a moving source; this is called the red-shift in physics. In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic Priest, postulated that this motion of the universe can be traced back to a point called the singularity, hence the beginning of the story of Big Bang by a Catholic priest. In 1920s Edwin Hubble provided more experimental evidence of expansion and red-shift from his astronomical observations; he also found the mathematical law that gives the speed of this expansion.

It was later shown that this explosion and the subsequent acceleration can be derived from Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. It turned out that Black-Holes and Big Bang are logical consequences of Einstein’s field equations.

In later decades scientists were able to collect more accurate data using more advances telescopes and experimental devices. They found out that the universe is expanding with an acceleration. The best experimental data, which is frequently tested and verified, comes from measurements that captures the residues from the Big Bang explosion. This data which is known as CMBR, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, is a record of the thermal radiations caused by Big Bang and has filled the whole of space. The following image is a visual of this background radiation.


You want to hear the sound of Big Bang? The information in the above image is converted into an audible file and sounds like this:

(Source of Audio: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound_2013.html)

The most recent theories of physics such as String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are attempts at unifying the laws of nature, especially Quantum Mechanics and Gravity, but they all agree on the event of Big Bang.

However, there are physicists whose research has taken them to more surprising conclusions. A group of physicists at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics have speculated that perhaps the Big Bang has never really happened! The idea is this: Though we appear to be in a universe that appears to have come from a big explosion, it is possible that the explosion has never really happened; instead our universe is projected out as a hologram. The idea of a holographic universe is also present in string theories but need more than 10 dimensions for their existence. But the new idea of these physicists at PI does not need higher dimensions. In their theory, our 3 dimensional universe is really the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere enclosing a 4 dimensional singularity at its center. The singularity never explodes; instead it projects outwardly its own infinite possibilities, and one of them is our universe.

A summary of their work is available here:


A very important advice would be to be aware of the ontological status of these various models of the observable universe. These models, though accurate and obtained by hard work, are nonetheless models. People get excited about new science stuff, such as quantum or big bang, and try to make paradigm shifts or base their ideologies and self-perceptions on these models. But this is wrong. Scientific theories describe a world that is not identical with the world of human experience, remembering that science is a small part of human experience. Science itself is one among the many human traditions; it is a human activity, and thus its results are derived and known by us and are not meant to govern or restrict us. If we are to base our spiritual or cosmic understanding on science, then we would have to change our ideas every decade or so. These models will change as better approximations and measurements become available. We see it in health science very often: One day peanuts are good and then they are not; egg is good and then it is bad, etc.

The universe of science is a mathematical model filled with endless approximations to interpret controlled experiments. The best example I can give you about the status of these models is this: What science produces is like a set of slides captured by a camera. When these slides are played they give the illusion of real experience but when we look at them they are just dead slides. Remember, film slides are a representation of reality; but reality is not the film slides.

The Mystery of Existence

Consciousness is by nature consciousness-of something. It is not that consciousness is at liberty to have or not to have an object. There cannot be consciousness without it being consciousness-of something. This characteristic is not an attribute of consciousness; it is its essence. It is called Intentionality or the intentional structure of consciousness. This feature is also expressed in Hinduism by the phrase Satchidananda as the essence of the supreme reality; it translates into Existence-Knowledge-Bliss. The existence aspect implies the object or a being, while the knowledge aspect relates the consciousness’s fundamental entanglement with the being or that which exists as the intended object of consciousness. Thus, consciousness cannot be disentangled from its object, for consciousness is precisely defined as that which has an object.

Another important logical feature of consciousness is that its object cannot have been separate from it at any point, as if there existed a moment where consciousness came into contact with its object. The object of consciousness is always within consciousness and not something alien to it. It is not as if consciousness is simply holding its object; consciousness and its object are like the two sides of one coin. This follows from the intentional structure of consciousness: If we assume that the object is separate from consciousness, and hence there was a point at which consciousness came into contact with its object, then consciousness would have to object-less prior to the contact; this, however, violates the intentional structure of consciousness. Thus, the object of consciousness belongs to consciousnesses itself and it has to be of the nature of consciousness. If the object would not be of the nature of consciousness, then there is no way for consciousness to intend an object which is of another nature; when you stretch your hand which is an organ of tactile perception only tactile objects can become into contact with the hand; the hand can never touch a sound which is of a different nature than a tactile object. In short, the object of consciousness is not only always within consciousness and never separate from it, it also is of the same nature as consciousness, for otherwise there is not logical basis for consciousness to bear within itself an object that is not of its own nature. We can in a way say that consciousness is pregnant with the object, the object belonging to it from its very inception to its growth and apparent independence. Like a woman, being an organic complex, cannot become pregnant with an inorganic object, which is alien to her nature, the object of consciousness, too, cannot be of a different nature than consciousness since it has never been separate from it in the first place.

Thus, consciousness can become conscious of itself if and only if it makes itself an object of knowledge, that is, it objectifies itself. Without such objectification consciousness cannot become self-conscious. This self-objectification of consciousness is what we know as the World. Thus, consciousness can see itself only in the mirror of the world. However, in such objectification consciousness becomes hypnotized by its own projection and identifies itself with objects of the world; it forgets itself and thinks it is a subject inside the world, little knowing that it is the very ground and essence of the world. In fact, there is nothing but consciousness, the world being only an intentional object, much like a mirage, through which consciousness can get a glimpse of its own face.

The moment consciousness recognizes its own face in the mirror of the world it is liberated from the bondage of its own identification with the world. The principal cause of bondage is objectification which is the essential power of consciousness. This power which we mentioned above as the intentional essence of consciousness is also known as Maya; it is under the strong effect of this objectification that consciousness forgets itself as the very cause of the world, thus it assumes to be the object and not that which is pregnant with the object. Consciousness is pregnant with the world; how can a mother be deluded into thinking that she is the child and not the mother!? But this is precisely the mystery of existence and the force behind humans’ confusions about their origin, essence, and teleology.

The only way for the realization of the truth is to wake up from this self-hypnosis through which we have forgotten our true essence as the very cause of the world and not as that which is in the world, namely the human person. Our humanity is only a veil, a mask, the end product of objectification. In truth we ourselves are the very agent behind this objectification, being in reality one and united as one supreme consciousness. The same way that one person can see infinite reflections of itself in an all mirrored room, consciousness too since it is surrounded by its own self-objectification as the world it naturally sees many reflections of itself as the many subjects in the world, each taking a different form according to how clear and flat the mirror is.

We are pure consciousness and there has never been anything but us. How can we become frightened and weakened when there is nothing outside us to frighten and weaken us! In reality we have never been in bondage no more than a person in a dream is in danger. Everything that we think we are we have only accepted it to be the case. But we don’t have to accept anything that belittles us or makes us trivial or accidental, be it science or religion, for these too have authority over us because we have accepted their authority and their claims to truth; they are valid only so far as we accept their reign. How can science or religion which are our own products turn against us and make us sinners or trivial accidents of cosmos!? How can our own products belittle us and undermine the significance of our precious existence?! If we were that little and insignificant how on earth can our science and religion, along with all their conclusions, amount to anything?! How can the very science that makes us trivial have any objective value as the product of a trivial and insignificant agent?! A science that makes a whore out of its mother also makes itself a mother fucking science.

What is is what we have accepted it to be, for we are that which is behind the acceptance and the accepted. We are always what we consider ourselves to be.

Science and Prejudice

It was in the nineteenth century that sciences began to determine the total worldview of man. Prior to that century it was not so clear that science’s theoretical grasp of natural order based on the purely quantitative aspect of phenomena had anything to do with the reality of human existence. Prior to nineteenth century in which science snatched the right to veto man’s every move, especially his perennial relation with the spiritual order, prior to that uproar and fuss about endless prosperity, prior to all that man was still spirit, a being essentially beyond and above the natural order whose hidden machinery was unveiled and exploited by his superior intelligence. The very success of sciences was telling of man’s supranatural dominion over nature, for if he were like all other beings fully subject to the same limiting laws and conditions, if his sole motivation was the prejudice of survival, then how could his science possess any objective value!?

Science began when man responded to his wonder about the world, when he realized that perhaps his mortality in flesh could be compensated by his immortality in intelligence; he wanted to know the world as it transcended the spatiotemporal limits of his finite existence; he wanted to know the world in itself. In other words, science began when man made a distinction between reality and appearance: Thus man entered the theoretical attitude, knolwedge for the sake of knowledge, episteme rather than doxa, truth in place of opinion.

However, when man initiated himself into the business of disinterested inquiry it was not as if he faced the world in an originary manner; it was not as if his starting point was a nature bare naked before him devoid of prejudice. The world that became man’s object of disinterested inquiry was the same world in which his all too practical existence was rooted. The object of his disinterested inquiry was already something in which man was spiritually, emotionally, and existentially invested, and it was such investments in which man’s theorizing was made possible in the first place. To be more precise, the world of facts that became man’s object of disinterested inquiry was a world already contaminated with prejudice.

It is not that science’s quantitative-theoretical attitude toward the world began with prejudice; rather, science’s quantitative-theoretical attitude toward the world is the prejudice. That the quantitative grasp of phenomena in general, and of human existence in particular, reflects the world as it is, and even worse as it should be, is the very prejudice upon which the total worldview of modern man is founded.

Science, of course, is not the source of problem; but the fact that science should determine man’s worldview and spiritual worth, that science as that which is determined by man is now to determine man, and that man has become enslaved to and suppressed by his own creation, man’s utter oblivion to the in principle blindness of science is the source of problem. A science that makes its master irrelevant, the very master who is the source of all relevance, including that of science, is none but the Judas of human existence.

A Non-Dual Perspective on The Big Bang

Existence As The Grand Illusion 

The similarities between Quantum Physics and Plato’s theory of Forms is so astonishing that one may even view quantum theory as a mathematical formulation of Plato’s theory of Forms.

Plato’s fundamental forms are regular solids of Euclidean Geometry. The fundamental forms of quantum physics are elementary particles which are not physical objects at all; elementary particles are mathematical objects; what we perceive in the form of matter is only the manifestation of these ideal-mathematical objects.

Plato considers our world to be the imperfect shadow of an ideal, perfect world of pure forms. It is not that Plato’s Pure Forms or Ideas are mental objects or subjective constructs. Plato’s Forms have existence of their own and are in fact the sole reality that exists. Only these Forms are real; what we experience as reality is the imperfect shadow of the world of pure forms. Thus, Plato’s Pure Forms are not physical entities existing in space and time; they are ideal-and in Plato’s view mathematical-entities existing beyond space and time.

Now take a look at a sentence from Werner Heisenberg, the German physicist and Nobel Laureate who was one the founders of quantum mechanics. He says in his Physics and Philosophy:

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our methods of questioning.

From the point of view of Quantum Physics what we regard as physical reality is only the projection of an ideal, non-physical reality. According to quantum physics the underlying reality is beyond space and time, and that is why we observe phenomena such as interference and entanglement. A purely physical reality existing in space-time could not possibly produce these phenomena which are observed and experimentally confirmed.

The universe as we know it, as this physical object, has no real, physical existence; it is a mere shadow of something that lies outside space and time, something essentially non-dual. In fact the non-existence of universe as an independent reality is an immediate consequence of the postulates of quantum physics:

An isolated quantum system remains forever in a superposition state (state of pure potentiality) until it is observed or disturbed by something outside the system itself.

Now if we take the quantum system to include our universe and all other possible universes, namely if we take our quantum system to coincide with the totality of what is, then there is no way for this system to ever leave the state of pure potentiality and become actual. Even if we posit the existence of some conscious agent outside totality, like god or whatever, which can make the universe into actuality the problem remains intact; we can now define the quantum system to include that agent as well, thus making it a pure potentiality rather than something actual that can produce any effects. Though this may sound pretty abstract or strange it was common sense for the non-dual Vedantist who knows that none of this has ever happened.

According to the principles of quantum physics universe cannot possibly exist; it cannot possibly be real. Though most physicists avoid this aspect of the theory, it is interesting to know that this conclusion of modern physics is identical to the central principle of Advaita Vedanta Metaphysics. The details of this similarity is discussed in my book “Non-Dual Perspective on Quantum Physics” to which I would provide a link at the end of this essay.

Now, what is even more striking when it comes to the similarity between Plato’s Forms and Quantum Physics is the idea that “the observable reality is an imperfect shadow of a transcendent reality.” Here is the source of awe:

In quantum theory the underlying reality is described by this mathematical object called “state vector” which is a more abstract form of wave function. The whole of quantum theory and its description of reality is built upon mathematical objects called vectors and operators.

The quantum system described by a state vector naturally dwells in Hilbert Space which is an abstract mathematical space lying beyond space-time. Hilbert Space in which superposition states exist is the space of pure potentiality where the formless, non-dual reality dwells. Hilbert Space is NOT inside our familiar space and time; it is more like the void that contains our space-time in pure, formless potentiality.

In quantum physics observation corresponds to the action of operators on state vectors. The operators corresponding to the act of observation are called Projection Operators. What projection operator does is to project what is in Hilbert Space onto our familiar space-time. A quantum system which is originally in superposition state inside Hilbert Space (space of pure potentiality) in thrown into actuality by the action of the Projection Operator.

The Projection Operator is defined in a graduate textbook of quantum physics as follows:

“The action of Projection Operator gives the shadow of any state vector on a subspace.”

Through the act of observation it is not the reality that we experience but a mere shadow of it; the true reality, including our own real selves, lies beyond space and time. According to quantum physics what is observed is a mere shadow of a transcendent reality.

Considering this precise meaning of observation and experience and also the fact that our universe could not have possibly been thrown into actuality, we see that the reality described by quantum physics is somewhat identical to the reality described by Plato’s Theory of Forms. Both agree that what is real is not what is observed: Observation is a mere shadow, a pure appearance, having no reality of its own.

The only thing that ever existed is the state of pure potentiality which can never be actualized. What we experience as actual reality is more like a dream: The apparent actuality must be a cosmic illusion, a Noema, a Maya, namely a Noemaya.

It is interesting to see that cosmologists have caught some clues about this idea since a lot of them are coming to the conclusion that our universe behaves more like a hologram, a theory known as the Holographic Universe.”

I have explained in detail the non-dual aspects of quantum physics and its similarities to esoteric traditions such as Advaita Vedanta in the following book: