Hinduism states that things are not what they seem.
Advaita interpretation of the Vedas say that what you see or perceive is because of your ignorance of Reality.
The Reality is One and you are not different from it.
You are conditioned by ignorance and your limitations which includes Space and Time , where as the Reality is beyond both of the
Vaisheshika Theory of Atoms says it differently.
Atoms are configured in various permutations and combinations to present a view of different objects, that is the objects are differ because of the
different structure of the Atoms constituting objects.
Let us look this from practical Life.
What you perceive is dependent on where you are , what you are and what your mental attitude is.
For the same set of Object, each of us have a different perception.
And the Attributes through which we recognize them are, when they are broken down mean nothing.
For example, the Attributes of a Rose.
A rose is known by its smell, color,climates in which they are grown are some of the Attributes we have for a Rose.
If you analyze these Attributes, you shall find they lead to nothing as such to recognize Rose as a Rose.
The Rose we recognize is some thing more than the Attributes we ascribe.
Even with out these Attributes we recognize a Rose.
For more on this, please read my Posts on Perception, Do we see what we really see.
We are familiar with Ultra Slow Motion cameras used in Cricket Matches.
Umpires use this to determine to take decisions on the field.
What is seen cleanly as ‘out’ is ‘not out’, when you refer these slow motion replays.
Which fact that is presented is correct?
Both are correct .
It depends on the conditions and the perspective.
This is what Hinduism has said about Five Thousand years ago.
Quantum Theory is now nearing it, n , but not quite.
Bells Theorem proves that Quantum Mechanics can not explain all the events by their theory alone.
Exactly what the Vedas say.
I am providing some Links and excerpts to refer.
“No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics”
“ There are variants of the Theorem with different meanings of “Local Realistic.” In John S. Bell‘s pioneering paper of 1964 the realism consisted in postulating in addition to the quantum state a “complete state”, which determines the results of measurements on the system, either by assigning a value to the measured quantity that is revealed by the measurement regardless of the details of the measurement procedure, or by enabling the system to elicit a definite response whenever it is measured, but a response which may depend on the macroscopic features of the experimental arrangement or even on the complete state of the system together with that arrangement. Locality is a condition on composite systems with spatially separated constituents, requiring an operator which is the product of operators associated with the individual constituents to be assigned a value which is the product of the values assigned to the factors, and requiring the value assigned to an operator associated with an individual constituent to be independent of what is measured on any other constituent. From his assumptions Bell proved an inequality (the prototype of “Bell’s Inequality”) which is violated by the Quantum Mechanical predictions made from an entangled state of the composite system. In other variants the complete state assigns probabilities to the possible results of measurements of the operators rather than determining which result will be obtained, and nevertheless inequalities are derivable; and still other variants dispense with inequalities. The incompatibility of Local Realistic Theories with Quantum Mechanics permits adjudication by experiments, some of which are described here. Most of the dozens of experiments performed so far have favored Quantum Mechanics, but not decisively because of the “detection loophole” or the “communication loophole.”
Let me put it from a common example.
All of us take decisions based on Available Data.
We do not have all the choices to enable us to decide on an issue.
We take decisions based on the Data, Information that is made available to us and we decide.
This means the decisions we make are made on the basis of information available or made to be available to us and not All the Information.
Hence our decisions, based on Choices are not fully correct as they have been preset with the limitations of the Choices being made available to us.
Please read my post on Choice.
“If the statistical predictions of quantum theory are true, an objective universe is incompatible with the law of local causes.”
Although formidable at first glance, Bell’s Theorem seems simpler once key terms are understood.
First, an “objective universe” is simply one that exists apart from our consciousness.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, together with Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky proposed through flawless mathematical reasoning that if the quantum theory were correct, then ‘A change in the spin of one particle in a two particle system would affect its twin simultaneously, even if the two had been widely separated in the meantime’. And ‘simultaneous’ is a dirty word in the theory of special relativity, which forbids the transmission of any signal faster than the speed of light. Obviously, a signal telling the particle ‘what to do’ would have to travel faster than the speed of light if instantaneous changes were to occur between the two particles.
The dilemma into which Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky dragged the quantum theory was a profound one, coming to be known as The ERP Effect.
In 1964 Bell’s Theorem emerged as a proof that Einstein’s impossible proposition did in fact hold true: instantaneous changes in widely separated systems did occur.
In 1972, Clauser confirmed the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics, working with an elaborate system involving photons, calcite crystals, and photo multiplier tubes The experiment has since been run several times with the same consistent results; Bell’s Theorem stands solid.
The implications of Bell’s theorem
are practically unthinkable
Even for the physicists involved, the implications of Bell’s Theorem are practically unthinkable. Mathematics and experimentation have taken us where our logical mind cannot go. Imagine, two particles once in contact, separated even to the ends of the universe, change instantaneously when a change in one of them occurs!
Slowly, new ideas are emerging to explain these unthinkable occurrences. One view is that, in some unexplainable way, the separated particles are still in contact although separated in space. This is the suggestion of the French physicist Bernard D’Espagnat. In 1979, writing about quantum reality, he said that “the entire notion of an external, fixed, objective world now lies in conflict not only with quantum theory, but in facts drawn from actual experiments…. in some sense all these objects constitute an indivisible whole.”
Physicist Jack Sarfatti of the Physics/Consciousness Research Group proposes that no actual energy-requiring signal is transmitted between the distant objects, but ‘information’ is transmitted instead. Thus no violation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity occurs. Exactly what this information is is unclear, and it is a strange thing which might travel instantly and require no energy to do so.
Nic Herbert, a physicist who heads the C-Life Institute, suggests that we have merely discovered an elemental oneness of the world. This oneness cannot be diminished by spatial separation. An invisible wholeness unites the objects that are given birth in the universe, and it is this wholeness that we have stumbled into through modern experimental methods. Herbert alludes to the words of the poet Charles Williams: “Separation without separateness, reality without rift.”