In the beginning, science did not have a large and strong
edifice of knowledge and techniques. But modern science is a force to reckon
with. There is a recent book, The Grand Design: New Answers to the Ultimate Questions of Life, by Hawking and Mlodinow (H&M) (2010), which demolishes
the God hypothesis quite convincingly. This book even overcomes the vexing
first-cause problem. Read it. It takes on, and answers, some of the deepest
questions we all think about.
Science does not have all the answers, but the power of the scientific method is such that our answers keep improving with time. In any case, there is no other method for answering any question about Nature.
Science does not have all the answers, but the power of the scientific method is such that our answers keep improving with time. In any case, there is no other method for answering any question about Nature.
I summarized this book in an online article. But that is no
substitute for the original book.
In a series of posts (one every week) I shall try to explain some salient points
made in this book in a simple language. But the question I want to address
first is: If scientific explanations are so good, why is it that so many people
do not know about them?
This is very tragic. Most people have not learnt even
elementary science, leave alone the kind of advanced science needed to answer
certain fundamental but difficult questions about our universe. I did not have any
difficulty in understanding and enjoying this book because I am a trained physicist and
therefore have the basic familiarity with most of the concepts used in H&M's book. But what should be done about people who do
not have a background in science?
Writing popular-science books is an obvious solution, but
that is easier said than done. Advanced science tends to be very mathematical.
On top of that, laws of Nature, for example the laws of quantum mechanics, are
highly counter-intuitive. For me this is not difficult to accept. After
all, laws of Nature have been there long before we humans came on the
scene. There is no reason to expect that
the laws must always be easy for us humans to understand. And yet it is crucial
that this important feature of reality be understood and accepted by the public
at large. This highlights the importance of bringing up children in an
atmosphere in which they appreciate, at a very early age, the essence of the
scientific way of interpreting any information or data. I shall dwell on that
in the next post.
You have very rightly pointed out some times science is hard to understand .Though I am doctor but to understand this Book was hard.I tried but failed.
ReplyDeleteEven the Nobel Prize winner Robert Feyman a great physicist once said
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
Another interest quote on why we do physics
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.”
― Richard P. Feynman
I shall offer a solution to this problem in my post entitled 'Our Duty Towards Children'.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate, but never completed. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.
ReplyDeleteIn my free ebook on comparative mysticism, "the greatest achievement in life," is a quote by Albert Einstein: ...most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty - which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form - this knowledge, this feeling, is the center of all religion.
E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Love, Grace, Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.
http://www.peacenext.org/profile/RonKrumpos
Thank you, Ron, for your comments. I shall come to M-theory etc. in due course, after doing a lot of spadework in this series of articles. Regarding consciousness, my views are expressed in the article http://nirmukta.com/2010/03/19/complexity-explained-16-evolution-of-intelligence-and-consciousness/
ReplyDeleteAs you will see, there is not much common ground between us. Nevertheless, I am happy to read your comments, and am open to correction.
Dr. Wadhawan,
ReplyDeleteI read your 2010/03/19 article on consciousness and am familiar with your positio, common to many neurologists. Most scholars in the physical sciences have little regard for suprarational consciousness, especially when the word "mysticism"is used in that context.
I was introduced to mysticism by a Nobel astrophysicist when we privately met at the University of Chicago's Yerkes Observatory. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was an atheist who once wrote "God is man's greatest invention." You do not have to be religious to be a mystic.
Heisenberg, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddington were supporters of mysticism. A good reference is "Quantum Questions / Mystical Writings of the World's Greatest Physicists," edited by Ken Wilber (Shambhala 1984, 2001).
We all agree that this debate is not going to end any time soon. Being a true-blood scientist, I do have an open mind on everything. Quantum mechanics is weird, in spite of being the most successful and thoroughly tested theory ever.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I am not very clear about what the word 'mystical' means! I should catch up on some reading. Thank you.
Dr. Wadhawan, I conduct an email forum for professors who teach mysticism at universities on six continents. An extract from one topic:
ReplyDeleteMysticism emphasizes spiritual knowing, which is not rational and is independent of reason, logic or images. Da`at is Hebrew for “the secret sphere of knowledge on the cosmic tree.” Gnosis is Greek for the “intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths.” Jnana is Sanskrit for “knowledge of the way” to approach Brahman. Ma`rifa in Arabic is “knowledge of the inner truth.” Panna in Pali is “direct awareness”; perfect wisdom. These modes of suprarational knowing, perhaps described as complete intuitive insight, are not divine oneness; they are actualizing our inherent abilities to come closer to the goal. It is consummate cognition, unmediated discernment, with certainty.
Prof. Krumpos, you say: 'These modes of suprarational knowing, perhaps described as complete intuitive insight, are not divine oneness; they are actualizing our inherent abilities to come closer to the goal. It is consummate cognition, unmediated discernment, with certainty.' Is there any tangible proof for your assertion, or is it just a matter of opinion?
ReplyDeleteProof? What is considered proof by one person may seem like hearsay to another. I have met 19 mystics in 12 countries, including Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan when I studied at Lucknow University in 1962.
ReplyDeleteMany people have seen photos or videos of Mount Everest, but relatively few have reached its summit. I flew over it in an RNAC helicopter while consulting for Royal Nepal Airlines in 1974. Direct experience surpasses intellectual knowledge (did I stretch this analogy too much?).
I appreciate and respect your willingness to pursue this discussion. Let me ask you a question about proof.
ReplyDeleteIn that same chapter of my ebook I wrote: "Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter and cosmic consciousness. During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents."
Then, in a footnote: "*These widely accepted theories imply that science can now study only 5% of this Universe."
My question to you is: If science knows relatively little about the Universe, how can it properly question 3,000 years of the teaching of mystics throughout the world? The unknown still far exceeds the known.
1. ' Direct experience surpasses intellectual knowledge.' That is YOUR opinion, or the opinion of some or many other persons. I disagree.
ReplyDelete2. Dark matter and dark energy are currently under investigation. As a person who is not a professional cosmologist, I would wait till the experts agree on something about them. Drawing an analogy between them and 'divine essence' is a matter of choice and opinion, nothing more than that.
3. 'During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents.' That is some exchange of 'insights' among mystics. Fine. So what? How are others supposed to accept this, and why?
4. 'These widely accepted theories imply that science can now study only 5% of this Universe.' True. But for the remaining 95%, is there any method available other than the scientific method? I do not think so. You are welcome to try any other method, but finally you must come with a model of reality which makes only falsifiable statements. Then only will your assertions get wide acceptance.
5. 'If science knows relatively little about the Universe, how can it properly question 3,000 years of the teaching of mystics throughout the world? The unknown still far exceeds the known.' I agree that there is so much more that needs to be investigated by scientists. But that does not mean that, out of desperation (or for any other reason), we should make the mistake of blindly accepting certain unfalsifiable statements. What is the hurry? Why not wait till science makes more progress. In any case, do we really have a choice, other than suspending judgement on certain matters?
We are at a standoff here. Thank you for listening.
ReplyDelete