Ajitabh Pandey's Soul & Syntax

Exploring systems, souls, and stories – one post at a time

Category: Views

  • Who Holds the Plough and the Vision? Inside Dayalbagh’s Spiritual Ecology

    When people see photos of Dayalbagh’s lush fields, dairy, and tree‑lined roads, one question often follows: who actually runs all this? It is one thing to talk about ecotheology and community farming in theory; it is another to keep a whole settlement living that way, every single day, across generations.

    In an earlier post, I wrote about how farming in Dayalbagh can feel like stepping into an open‑air temple, where soil, seed, and sweat become part of a daily act of worship.

    In this post, I want to stay with that “who” and “how”: how a living spiritual centre, shared values, and a distinctive education system shape the way work, conflicts, and change are handled in Radhasoami Faith Dayalbagh.

    A Living Centre: Sant Satguru and the Shared Vision

    Dayalbagh is not simply an eco‑village that later added a religious identity; it is a faith‑based community that has grown its ecological and social practices around a spiritual centre. The overall direction of community life is shaped by the Radhasoami Satsang Sabha, the central body of the faith community, under the guidance of a living Sant Satguru.

    At present, Revered Prof. P. S. Satsangi is the Sant Satguru of the Radhasoami (Ra Dha Sva Aa Mi) Faith. He also serves as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Education (ACE), which guides the educational policy of Dayalbagh Educational Institute. This dual role is important: it means that spiritual guidance and educational vision are not two parallel tracks but deeply intertwined.

    In Radhasoami (Ra Dha Sva Aa Mi) faith, understanding, bhakti (devotion) and prem (love) for the present and past Satgurus are not just private emotions; they are the inner source of discipline, commitment, and a willingness to work together for the common good. When people share the same spiritual focus, the “big picture” becomes more than a management chart—it becomes a lived aspiration.

    Dayalbagh Educational Institute: Where Vision Meets Research and Training

    Within Dayalbagh, the Dayalbagh Educational Institute (DEI) is a “deemed to be university” that functions as both an academic institution and a practical laboratory for the community’s way of life. Its education policy, originally framed in 1975, explicitly aims at “integral education” — spiritual, moral, intellectual, and vocational — rooted in the values of the Radhasoami (Ra Dha Sva Aa Mi) Faith and the everyday practices of Dayalbagh.

    DEI’s programmes range from pre‑nursery to doctoral levels and cover fields such as agriculture, dairy technology, renewable energy, management, social sciences, and education, with a strong emphasis on skill development and social service. Many faculty members serve in honorary or partly honorary capacities, reflecting the ethic of seva (selfless service) rather than purely transactional employment.

    In practical terms, DEI acts as the research and training “engine room” for Dayalbagh’s ecological projects:

    • developing agroecological methods for the community’s Agroecology‑cum‑Precision Farm,
    • studying water, soil, and air quality,
    • designing nano‑enterprises in dairy and food processing,
    • and taking these models to rural and tribal areas through outreach centres.

    So while the Sant Satguru and RSS hold the spiritual and overall vision, DEI operationalizes it in education, research, and training.

    From Vision to Daily Seva

    If you walk through Dayalbagh early in the morning, you will see that the vision is not only in policy papers; it is in the mud on people’s hands. Residents – young and old, men and women – go to the fields and Gaushala (Cowshed) in organized shifts, working voluntarily in ploughing, weeding, harvesting, fodder cutting, milking, composting, and related tasks.

    In Dayalbagh, all volunteers below the age of seventy are affectionately referred to as “Young Men” and “Women,” and everyone is encouraged to offer seva within the limits of their physical capacity. The emphasis is not on how much one can do, but on participating joyfully in a shared act of service.

    This is very much a “practice what you preach” culture. The present Sant Satguru himself, Revered Prof. P. S. Satsangi, continues to go to the agricultural fields to perform seva even at the age of eighty‑nine, setting a living example of humility and devotion for the entire community. In many ways, his quiet, steady fieldwork echoes the spirit of Srimadbhagavadgita (2.47) “कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते” — कर्मणि (in action), एव (only), अधिकारः (your rightful responsibility), ते (yours): a reminder that one’s place is in doing the work, not grasping at its results.

    These daily rhythms are not enforced by salaries or fear of penalties. They are carried by shared values:

    • seva (selfless service) as an expression of bhakti (devotion),
    • dignity of labour,
    • simplicity of lifestyle,
    • and a commitment to the “Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man,” which extends to care for land, water, animals, and neighbours.

    Because people see tangible fruits – cleaner surroundings, affordable food, strong community bonds, and a sense of participation in something larger than themselves – the model continues to attract participation without constant persuasion campaigns.

    A Values‑Driven Way of Handling Difficulty

    From outside, we rarely get access to the internal details of how interpersonal conflicts are handled, and it would not be honest to speculate. What we can see clearly, though, is how Dayalbagh responds to practical challenges and potential “failures” in its ecological and social experiments.

    Over the past decades, community members have:

    • transformed once sandy, ravine‑ridden land into fertile, organically managed fields;
    • addressed water scarcity by combining rainwater harvesting, treated wastewater reuse, and drip irrigation, reducing water use and production costs;
    • introduced sensor‑based monitoring and cooling systems in the Gaushala to protect animals from heat stress;
    • and responded to air pollution and the COVID‑19 pandemic by using open‑air spaces, restricting vehicles, and relying on biodiversity buffers and local food systems.

    In each of these cases, the community did not simply endure problems; it experimented, adjusted, and learned. DEI’s education policy speaks of fostering “frugal innovation” and “learning by doing,” and the institute’s entrepreneurial labs and nano‑enterprises embody a culture where trying, failing, troubleshooting, and trying again are normal parts of growth.

    Taken together, this suggests that Dayalbagh’s way of handling difficulty is less about hiding failure and more about treating it as a shared problem to be addressed in a spirit of seva and experiment. The system is deliberately values‑driven, experimental, and adaptive in the face of environmental and practical challenges.

    From a spiritual perspective, the presence of a living Sant Satguru and the community’s prem (love and affection) for the Satgurus of the past and present provide the inner orientation needed to resolve problems when they arise.

    Growing Up in the Middle of It: Children and Youth

    What does all this look like for children and Gen Z? In Dayalbagh, young people are not only observers of the system; they are formed by it from the earliest years.

    • Early childhood: Even very young children are exposed to field environments and values education in natural surroundings, through schemes that emphasize discipline, cooperation, and selfless service in age‑appropriate ways.
    • School and college: At DEI, courses in agriculture, environmental studies, social service, and rural development are built into the curriculum. Students regularly participate in field seva, Yamuna river clean‑up efforts, and social‑service camps, often working alongside older community members and teachers.
    • Higher education and skills: Programmes like B.Voc and M.Voc in Dairy Technology, Food Processing, Apparel, and Renewable Energy are tied to real units – mini dairy plants, garment workshops, and food‑processing labs – where students learn to run small enterprises in a value‑based way.

    Special initiatives such as ATMA (Apparel and Toy Making Association), ADyNam (Agricultural and Dairy Nano‑processing of Multi‑products), and AAM (Automotive and Multi‑skill Karkhana) train youth and women in practical skills, both within Dayalbagh and in outreach locations like the tribal cluster of Rajaborari.

    In this way, the younger generation does not have to be “convinced” of the model after the fact; they grow up inside it.

    Beyond Dayalbagh: Sharing the Model

    Though Dayalbagh has a strong internal identity, it is not inward‑looking. DEI and the community have taken their integrated model of faith, ecology, and education to other regions, especially rural and tribal areas.

    In Rajaborari (Madhya Pradesh), for example, DEI and Dayalbagh have helped establish a “Forest of the Merciful” cluster of villages where education from pre‑nursery to higher levels is provided through ICT (Information Communication and Technology) centres and EDUSAT, and where local people are trained in skills such as garment making, food processing, and automotive services under initiatives like ATMA, ADyNam, and AAM.

    Internationally, Dayalbagh’s approach has been showcased in policy forums (such as the G20/T20 process) as a community‑based path toward achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and linked institutions like the International Centre for Agroecology (ICA) in New Jersey and the International Centre for Applied Systems and Sustainable Development (ICASSSD) in Toronto help carry its insights to other contexts.

    Here too, the sharing is not only technical; it is ethical and spiritual. The insistence on honesty, simplicity, non‑violence, and service shapes how training is offered and how partnerships are conceived.

    Organization as a Form of Bhakti

    Seen from a distance, Dayalbagh’s organization can look very intricate: spiritual leadership, Radhasoami Satsang Sabha, DEI, agroecology, precision farming, nano‑enterprises, outreach centres. But looked at from within, there is a simpler thread holding it together: bhakti and prem for the Satguru, expressed through values‑driven work in every domain of life.

    In that sense, the question “who sees the big picture?” has a layered answer. Yes, there are committees, frameworks, and institutional roles. But beneath them is a shared spiritual orientation that treats organizing, teaching, farming, and problem – solving themselves as forms of devotion.

    For those of us looking in from outside, Dayalbagh offers not a ready‑made blueprint, but a living example: when spiritual guidance, ethical values, research, and daily labour are all allowed to pull in the same direction, it becomes possible – not easy, but possible – to sustain a community that cares for its land and its people over the long haul.

  • Why Is My Computer Asking to “Find Devices” on My Network? (Should I Say Yes?)

    If you’ve opened Chrome, a coding app, or even some basic software lately, you might have seen a message like:

    “Allow this app to find and connect to devices on your local network?”

    That can sound a bit unsettling. It almost feels like your computer wants to look around your house. So what’s really going on?

    Think of It Like Your Home

    Imagine your Wi-Fi as a hallway inside your house.

    • Your laptop is in one room
    • Your TV is in another
    • Your printer is somewhere else

    Normally, these devices stay in their own spaces. When an app asks for “local network access,” it’s basically asking:

    “Can I walk into the hallway and see what other devices are nearby?”

    It’s not breaking in – it’s just asking permission to look around.

    Why Apps Ask for This

    Most of the time, apps aren’t trying to spy on you. They’re just trying to do useful things.

    Here are a few common situations:

    • Watching something and casting it to your TV
      Your browser needs to find your TV on the same Wi-Fi. Without permission, it simply can’t see it.
    • Printing a document
      Your laptop needs to locate your printer and send the file to it.
    • Setting up smart devices
      If you buy a smart bulb or camera, the setup app needs to find that device to connect it to your Wi-Fi.

    What About AI or Coding Apps?

    You might also see this with tools like Codex or Cursor or other AI apps.

    Even if you’re not a programmer, here’s why:

    • Some apps sync files between your devices over your home Wi-Fi
    • Some AI tools connect to local services or devices instead of using the internet

    So the request is still about devices talking to each other inside your home network.

    So… Should You Allow It?

    Here’s a simple way to decide:

    • Browsers (Chrome, Safari):
      Start with “No.” You don’t need it for normal browsing. If you try to cast something later, it’ll ask again.
    • Setting up a new device:
      Say “Yes.” It won’t work otherwise.
    • Coding or AI tools:
      Usually “No,” unless you know you need it.
    • Music or smart speaker apps (Spotify):
      Say “Yes” if you want to control devices around your house.

    Is There Any Privacy Risk?

    A little, yes.

    When you allow access, the app can see what devices are connected to your Wi-Fi. That might include things like your TV, speakers, or other gadgets.

    It’s not stealing anything, but it can build a picture of your setup. Companies might use that kind of information to better target ads or understand your habits.

    The Simple Rule

    If you’re unsure, just tap “Don’t Allow.”

    Nothing breaks permanently. If something stops working (like casting or printing), you can always go into your settings later and turn it on.

    Think of it this way: keep the doors closed until you actually need to open them.

  • When Farming Becomes Prayer: Ecotheology and Everyday Life in Dayalbagh

    The agricultural fields of Dayalbagh, Agra do not feel like conventional farms. When you enter them, it can seem as though you have stepped into an open-air temple where soil, seed, and sweat are all part of an unbroken act of worship.

    During my master’s studies in theology at Dayalbagh Educational Institute, I wrote a short paper as part of a self-study project. This blog grows out of that work, exploring how a Radhasoami (Ra Dha Sva Aa Mi) faith-based community in Dayalbagh, Agra, approaches agriculture as a form of daily spiritual practice, and what this perspective might contribute to contemporary ecotheology.

    What Ecotheology Looks Like on the Ground

    Ecotheology is often defined in abstract terms: a branch of theology that reflects on the relationship between God, humans, and the natural world. But at its heart, ecotheology is simply a way of asking: if we truly believe the world is sacred, how should that change the way we live on the land, grow food, and treat other beings?

    Radhasoami (Ra Dha Sva Aa Mi) community at Dayalbagh offers a rare, concrete answer to that question. Rather than treating religion as something that happens only in a temple or during a weekly service, this community integrates spiritual practice into every layer of daily life – education, transport, healthcare, and crucially, agriculture. Here farming is not just an economic activity, it is a primary arena in which spiritual ideals like selfless service, quality, and stewardship are lived out.

    Dayalbagh: A Living Eco-Village

    Dayalbagh is often described as an eco‑village or eco‑city: a consciously designed community that strives to be socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable. With a few thousand permanent residents and many more pilgrims visiting during major festivals, it functions as a small town whose way of life influences neighboring communities as well.

    Agriculture and dairying are central pillars of this model. Over the last century, residents have transformed what was once difficult terrain into a largely self‑sufficient, green landscape that produces food, fodder, fruits, and herbs for residents, pilgrims, and associated institutions like the Dayalbagh Educational Institute.

    Dayalbagh today is characterized by organic fields, tree‑lined roads, rainwater harvesting structures, and a Gaushala (cowshed) that is fully integrated into the local food and energy system.

    Seva in the Fields: When Work Becomes Worship

    One of the most striking features of Dayalbagh’s agriculture is that most of the work is done as seva – voluntary, selfless service. Hundreds of residents, irrespective of age, caste, income, or occupation, gather in the fields morning and evening to weed, transplant, irrigate, and harvest, not for wages but as an expression of devotion.

    This is not romanticized rhetoric: fieldwork is recognized as physically demanding, and yet it is embraced as a spiritual discipline that cultivates humility, shared responsibility, and a direct connection with the land.
    The Dayalbagh model explicitly frames agriculture as an “opportunity to do selfless service,” a way of participating in the upliftment of all rather than merely securing one’s own livelihood.

    From an ecotheological perspective, this is profound. It means that environmental stewardship is not an optional “add‑on” to spiritual life, it is one of the main ways people actually practice their faith.

    Organic Farming as an Ethical Commitment

    Dayalbagh’s farm is officially described as an “Agroecology‑cum‑Precision Farm,” and one of its foundational commitments is to organic cultivation. Agriculture there “mostly follows the concept of zero chemical fertilizers and pesticides,” relying instead on compost, vermicompost, biofertilizers, and organic manure from the dairy.

    Cow dung and urine from the Gaushala are recycled as fertilizer and as inputs for biogas, creating a near closed‑loop system where waste becomes resource. This reduces dependence on external chemical inputs, protects soil and water quality, and aligns with the Radhasoami emphasis on ahimsa (non‑harm) and reverence for life, not only human life, but also plant, animal, and microbial life.

    Author, using organic manure in the Dayalbagh fields

    In a world where industrial agriculture often treats soil as an inert medium and animals as production units, Dayalbagh’s organic practices embody a different ethic: one of care, reciprocity, and restraint.

    Ecology, Community, and Consciousness

    Ecotheology is not only about “nature”, it is also about community. Dayalbagh’s agricultural system is deeply communal, involving residents, students, and visiting satsangis in everything from sowing to harvesting.
    Agricultural work is woven into the education system of the Dayalbagh Educational Institute, so that students learn not only theories in classrooms but also values like dignity of labour, cooperation, and environmental responsibility through hands‑on fieldwork.

    At the same time, the community’s broader philosophy – often captured in phrases like “better worldliness” and the “Dayalbagh Way of Life” – insists that spiritual growth and social responsibility cannot be separated. Living a good life means living in a way that reduces one’s footprint, shares resources fairly, and consciously aligns everyday practices with the welfare of all beings.

    This is why Dayalbagh’s way of life is frequently cited as a practical model for implementing all 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals: sustainability is not pursued through policy documents alone, but through daily habits in housing, food, energy, education, and transport.

    A Different Imagination of Progress

    Spending time with Dayalbagh’s fields invites us to rethink what “progress” means. Here, success is not measured only by yield per acre or income per capita, but by the quality of relationships – between people and land, humans and animals, elders and children, contemplation and work.

    The community does not reject technology; on the contrary, it uses innovations like drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting, and recycled wastewater to reduce resource use and environmental impact. Yet these tools are always subordinated to deeper values: selfless service, moderation, and a commitment to the upliftment of all rather than the enrichment of a few.

    For ecotheology, this is a crucial lesson. The question is not simply whether we use technology, but what spiritual and ethical frameworks guide that use.
    Dayalbagh suggests that when technology is harnessed in the spirit of seva and stewardship, it can support rather than undermine our sacred relationship with the earth.

    What We Can Learn Wherever We Are

    Most of us do not live in intentional eco‑villages, and we may not have access to community farms or Gaushalas. But we can still draw inspiration from the way Radhasoami (Ra Dha Sva Aa Mi) Faith at Dayalbagh turns farming into a daily liturgy of care: buying food more consciously, growing a few herbs or vegetables, reducing waste, and treating our local environments as sanctuaries rather than as commodities.

    For me, as a theology student, Dayalbagh has been a living commentary on ecotheology, one written not in academic prose, but in compost piles, irrigation channels, and tired yet joyful hands returning from the fields. It reminds us that the most compelling religious environmental ethics may not be found in books alone, but in communities where farming itself has become a form of prayer.

  • Beyond the Turing Test: When “Human-Like” AI Isn’t Really Human

    Every few years, a new wave of artificial intelligence captures public attention. Chatbots start sounding more natural. Machines write poems, code, and essays. Some even offer emotional support. And inevitably, the same question resurfaces:

    “Has AI finally become intelligent?”

    Often, this question is framed in terms of a famous benchmark proposed more than seventy years ago, the Turing Test. If a machine can talk like a human, does that mean it thinks like one?

    As someone who works closely with technology, I’ve found that the answer is far more complicated than it first appears.

    From Philosophy to Observable Behavior

    In 1950, British mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing published a groundbreaking paper titled “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” In it, he proposed what later became known as the Turing Test.

    Rather than arguing about abstract definitions of “thinking,” Turing suggested a simple experiment:

    A human judge communicates through text with two unseen participants—one human and one machine. If the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, the machine is said to have passed the test.

    Turing’s idea was revolutionary for its time. It shifted the conversation from philosophy to observable behavior. Intelligence, he suggested, could be judged by how convincingly a machine behaved in human conversation.

    Why Passing the Test Feels So Impressive

    When an AI passes something like the Turing Test, it demonstrates several remarkable abilities:

    • It can use natural language fluently
    • It responds appropriately to context
    • It adapts to tone and emotion
    • It maintains long, coherent conversations

    To most people, this feels like intelligence. After all, language is one of our strongest markers of human cognition. If something talks like us, we instinctively assume it thinks like us.

    Modern language models amplify this effect. They can discuss philosophy, explain technical concepts, and even joke convincingly. In short interactions, they often feel “alive.”

    But appearance is not reality.

    But Imitation is Not Reality

    One of the strongest critiques of the Turing Test comes from philosopher John Searle. In his famous “Chinese Room” thought experiment, Searle imagined a person who manipulates Chinese symbols using a rulebook, without understanding Chinese.

    From the outside, the system appears fluent. Inside, there is no comprehension.

    Searle’s argument was later developed in his book Minds, Brains, and Programs.

    The parallel with modern AI is clear:
    A system can produce correct, fluent answers without grasping their meaning.

    It processes patterns, not concepts.

    There are several other limitations in the Turing Test.. The Turing Test is essentially an “imitation game” that rewards the best liar. By focusing purely on conversation, it ignores the “big picture” of intelligence—like moral reasoning and creativity—while leaving the final verdict up to the mercy of biased human judges. In fields like healthcare or finance, we need transparency, not a machine that’s just good at pretending.

    To move beyond the limitations of mere imitation, the industry has developed more rigorous, multi-dimensional benchmarks. This is a shift that defines how AI is evaluated today.

    Modern Benchmarks for Machine Intelligence

    As AI research matured, scientists moved beyond the Turing Test. Today, intelligence is evaluated across multiple dimensions.

    Reasoning Benchmarks

    Projects like BIG-bench and the ARC Challenge test logical reasoning, abstraction, and problem-solving.

    General Knowledge and Transfer

    The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other institutions study whether AI can generalize knowledge across domains, a core feature of human learning.

    Embodied Intelligence

    Some labs, including OpenAI, explore how AI behaves in simulated environments, learning through interaction rather than text alone.

    Safety and Alignment

    Modern evaluations increasingly focus on whether systems behave responsibly and align with human values, not just whether they sound smart.

    These approaches reflect a more mature understanding of intelligence.

    Why Passing the Turing Test Does Not Mean “Thinking”

    Even if an AI consistently fools human judges, it still does not think like a human in any meaningful sense.

    1. Patterns vs. Mental Models

    AI systems learn by analyzing enormous datasets and predicting likely sequences. They recognize correlations, not causes.

    Humans build mental models of the world grounded in experience.

    2. No Conscious Awareness

    There is no evidence that current AI systems possess subjective awareness. They do not experience curiosity, doubt, or reflection.

    Philosopher David Chalmers famously described consciousness as the “hard problem” of science. AI has not come close to solving it.

    3. No Intentions or Desires

    Humans think in terms of goals, fears, hopes, and values. AI has none of these internally. Any “motivation” is externally programmed.

    4. No Moral Responsibility

    We hold humans accountable for their actions. We cannot meaningfully do the same for machines. Responsibility always traces back to designers and operators.

    The Illusion of Intelligence

    While researching for this blog post, I found several references to a book, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by Stuart Russell and Perter Norvig. The authors note in this book that much of AI’s success comes from exploiting narrow problem structures.

    When AI speaks fluently, we instinctively anthropomorphize it. We project personality, intention, and emotion onto it. I think this is a psychological reflex and we confuse convincing behavior with inner life.

    Rethinking What Intelligence Really Means

    The Turing Test remains historically important. It sparked decades of innovation and philosophical debate. But in today’s context, it feels outdated.

    Instead of asking:

    “Can machines fool us?”

    We should ask:

    • Can they reason reliably?
    • Can they support human decision-making?
    • Can they reduce harm?
    • Can they enhance creativity and productivity?

    These questions matter far more than imitation.

    As AI researcher Yann LeCun has often emphasized, intelligence is not just about language, it is about learning, planning, and interacting with the world.

    Intelligence Without Illusion

    Passing the Turing Test is an impressive technical milestone. It shows how far machine learning and language modeling have progressed.

    But it does not mean machines think, understand, or experience the world as humans do.

    Today’s AI systems are powerful tools, statistical engines trained on vast amounts of human-generated data. They extend our capabilities, automate tasks, and sometimes surprise us.

    They do not possess minds.

    The real challenge of AI is not to build perfect human imitators, but to create systems that responsibly complement human intelligence, while respecting the depth, complexity, and fragility of our own.

    In the long run, that goal is far more valuable than passing any imitation game.

  • Quantum Mechanics And Consciousness – A relation established

    In the beginning there was classical mechanics propounding the corpuscular theory of matter and describing the motion of bodies under the influence of a system of forces. But this classical mechanics fails to describe the motion of sub-atomic particles and then Quantum Mechanics was born. Quantum Mechanics deals with mechanics of sub-atomic particles.

    Moore’s Law and Quantum Computing

    According to Moore’s law the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles every two years. This in-turn means that at some point of time the size of transistors will be equal to atomic size. When that happens, the laws governing modern day computers which are based on classical mechanics will not apply any more since classical mechanics do not deal with sub-atomic particles. At this point of time, what we would need is Quantum computers which are based on laws of quantum mechanics.

    Bit and Qubit – Meaow

    Schrodinger’s Cat is a thought experiment which simultaneously describes a cat as being dead or alive. If we put a cat in a box and somehow inject a poison in the box, we can not say with surety that the cat is alive or dead. At that moment the cat could be alive or dead. However, when we open the box we will find the cat in any one state – either alive or dead. This experiment shows that until a measurement is done there are multiple states possible (because the states do not get disturbed) and when the measurement is done all the states gets (disturbed) and superimposed into any one of the possible states.

    A modern day computer is based on binary number system comprising of two states – 0 or 1. At any point of time any one of these states can be possible and we can easily find out which state it is. However, a quantum computer is based on Qubit or quantum bit. The laws of quantum mechanics allows a qubit to be in a state other than |0) and |1) (pronounced as ket 0 and ket 1, respectively). It can in-fact be a superimposition of both the states at the same time.

    |Psi) = alpha|0) + beta|1)

    (pronounced as ket psi = alpha ket 0 + beta ket 1)

    This is also known as two-state quantum system.

    Like there are logic gates in binary computers, there are quantum gates in the quantum computers. A description of all these gates will be beyond the scope of this post.

    Quantum System Modelling

    The Quantum and Nano Computing Virtual Centre at Dayalbagh Educational Institute has published various research papers with the International Journal of General Systems on this subject. In a paper published in 2011 on Graph-Theoretic Quantum System Modelling For Information / Computation Processing Circuits (GTQSM), the researchers have been able to generalized the graph-theoretic system modelling framework, which was until now used for classical (deterministic) systems, to quantum random systems. Further in the paper the researchers present various applications of GTQSM for quantum information/computation processing circuits. Among other applications of GTQSM presented in this paper, one of the interesting application which caught my attention was a substantive case of 3-port, 5-stage circuit for Quantum Teleportation. Quantum teleportation is a process by which quantum information can be transmitted (exactly, in principal) from one location to another.

    GTQSM Linked With Microtubules in Brain – Is our brain a quantum computer?

    Microtubules are intracellular structures that are responsible for various kinds of movements on all eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells have a membrane bound nucleus, number of membrane bound organelles (such as mitochondria, chloroplasts, the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi apparatus, and lysosomes) and linear chromosomes. These microtubules are filamentous in nature and further made up of tubulin. These microtubules are formed by the polymerization of a dimer of two globular proteins, alpha and beta tubulin. (Side Note – Microtubules function in many essential cellular processes, including mitosis. Tubulin-binding drugs kill cancerous cells by inhibiting microtubule dynamics, which are required for DNA segregation and therefore cell division.)

    Another research paper written in 2013 by the researchers at Quantum and Nano Computing Virtual Centre at Dayalbagh Educational Institute on Graph-theoretic quantum system modelling for neuronal microtubules as hierarchical clustered quantum Hopfield networks was published in the International Journal of General Systems in March 2014 . This paper presents an insight, otherwise difficult to gain, for the complex system of systems represented by clustered quantum Hopfield network, hQHN, through the application of GTQSM construct. This paper applies GTQSM in continuum of protein heterodimer tubulin molecules of self-assembling polymers, viz. microtubules in the brain as a holistic system of interacting components representing hierarchical clustered quantum Hopfield network, hQHN, of networks.

    Look Ma, I found a link between Quantum Physics and Consciousness!

    In my previous blog post “On The Origin of The Universe and Consciousness“, I mentioned that – “In the western perspective the focus is mostly on the outward and in the eastern tradition the focus is on the inwards. As a result of this the western approaches prefer scientific methods.” If we really wanted a scientific approach towards understanding consciousness then a study of human brain is a must. Quantum theories of consciousness are based on mathematical abstraction. The most promising theory in this area is Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) theory. The International Journal of General Systems have another research paper published in 2015 by researchers at Quantum and Nano Computing Virtual Centre at Dayalbagh Educational Institute. This paper on Modelling microtubules in the brain as n-qudit quantum Hopfield network and beyond presented the extension Penrose-Hameroff model to n-dimensional quantum states or n-qudits thus promising for even higher mathematical abstraction in modelling consciousness systems. This 2015 paper has recently been followed by another paper written in 2016 and published by International Journal of General Systems in April 2017. This paper – From n-qubit multi-particle quantum teleportation modelling to n-qudit contextuality based quantum teleportation and beyond expands the horizon by arguing for point-sized loops or fine-grained particles of nature, which have been rejected out of hand by string theorists. People familiar with Quantum Physics would know that it is not possible to have any particle smaller than Planck’s length, which is 1.6 x 10-35 m. Consequently, this is the length which has any sensible meaning in physics. The argument present in this paper for sizes smaller than Planck’s length is very interesting. Satsangi argues that finer-grained particles than Planck’s length 10−35 m may exist, although, they are not matter anymore. Further he says that why stop at degree of freedom of three? Why not pursue quantum odd-prime based units (qudit) with higher degree n such as 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and so on till nth degree of freedom even tending to infinity. Satsangi says that it is unscientific to stop at Planck’s dimension, the particles have grown so subtle that we have not devised physical instruments to measure them. Further quoting from the paper (and it is explained in such simple terms that I can not simplify it further) –

    “Similarly, on the large side, scientists are not able to consider more than 1010 light years, so they do not know what exists in space beyond 1010 light years. So they are limited deliberately on these counts, whereas mathematics which is part of science, shows that particles are there which are subtler, subtler and subtlest ones. They move to infinity, they are most subtle, they become very small or subtle when we are close to zero, infinity is the macrocosm problem. Scientists can neither access infinity, nor zero, but none would say mathematics is not part of science.

    To make the scientific community see what the reality is, the best way forward seems to make them realize that their own mathematics shows that we have to tackle a problem with zero and infinity, since they are not admitting zero point loops.

    ….The whole basis is a mathematical construct, but naturally, what keeps them in disbelief and doubt their own discoveries is that they visualize that there will be very high temperatures characteristic of fusion reactor such as is present in the sun, which is part of the milky way galaxy where earth is located (as a planet). But they overlook this point that in that environment, what has to survive are these small particles, not the physical body that we possess, this body has to be given up much earlier. Physical body cannot withstand those temperatures. The spirit force as part of Hilbert vector space over a field of complex numbers, are what Roger Penrose says, why not, xy where both x and y are integers, instead of visualizing quantum odd-based prime units, i.e. qudits. These particles possess infinite capabilities mathematically and precisely. So for us, whether we look at it from the angle of modern fashion, or scientific faith or even fantasy, the picture is all very clear that the characterization in scientific space is the Hilbert vector space over a field of complex numbers, or a field of integers, or whatever you want to say in the same vein for that matter. And when you raise the power, the particles under consideration are infinitesimally small and they have infinitely large capabilities, so that is where they possess this characteristic of omniscience along with omnipresence and omnipotence. “

    Conclusion

    A very deep research is going on in the field of Quantum and Nano Computing, Quantum Information Systems and Consciousness atQuantum and Nano Computing Virtual Centre . Hopefully, we will eventually be able to reach to fully explain consciousness using scientific methods.