Right from the beginning man has been in pursuit of acquiring knowledge. Initially he did it with the observations of the surroundings. Subsequently this study of surroundings was named as science. The sciences explained how the events take place, what are the causes and effects of particular events. This development of science took place in the background of religious beliefs where the rituals were mainly related to some unobservable results. For example the religious beliefs asked people to do good to get wealth in heavens. Sciences asked them to follow a particular series of acts to get wealth in this world. The religion asked for unobservable results mainly based on faith while the sciences asked for observable outcomes based on achievements. Human psychology preferred the later. People found sciences more convenient to them.
This preference was based on the observation of people that this world is objective which has an ultimate reality. They thought that this ultimate reality could be discovered through the scientific discoveries. This belief of people that the ultimate reality is discoverable through some scientific procedures was strengthened by those procedures themselves. When the science broke a particle a new sub-particle level was found. It was, therefore inferred that one day as the technology provides a suitable gadget the ultimate sub-level will be discovered and thereafter the sciences will reach their ultimate peak. This optimism of people about the ultimate reality through the scientific methods made them develop a psychological mental framework regarding the superiority of sciences, matter, objectivity, reason etc.
……
Then it came the twentieth century. A scientific revolution also came along with. Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Plank, Bohr, Bose, Schrödinger and a lot more scientists joined the stride. Einstein told people that it was not the matter only but the energy was also equally important. Matter and energy were inter-convertible. When this all was on, Heisenberg put forward his revolutionary idea. He said that the position and velocity of a particle both cannot be ascertained simultaneously with the same precision. He gave a particular number that the imprecision would always be greater than that number. As per Prof. Dave MacCallum, November 20th, 2000 later it was realized that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applied not only to the relationship between momentum and position, but between non-continuous observables. If the spin of a particle in the z direction is known, then the spin in the y direction cannot be known. This is equivalent to the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics demonstrated in the Stern-Gerlach measurements and in the Copenhagen interpretation of the wave-equation. These probabilistic results are quite disturbing for a belief in absolute truth. Please recollect it, that it was the science itself which propagated the idea of the absolute truth at some sub – sub- atomic level of the matter. That idea was put at the stake by the scientific theories themselves.
……
Coming back to the science, Schrödinger is known for his declaration regarding the demise of the matter. Another contemporary, Neil Bohr was also saying the same thing but in different words. Neil Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be (for example, a wave or a particle), but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or even to exist, until it is measured. In short, Bohr was saying that a particle may or may not exist at the same time. In other words he says that the objective reality does not exist.
……
Those who accept the new knowledge only if it is “contradiction – free”, should now reconsider their premises. The science never takes recourse of logic. It pursues observations. It then generalizes those observations and this generalization is called a scientific law. Logic is used by those who are not scientists, and want to discover the ultimate knowledge with the help of languages they use. They presume that their language is all capable.
To dispel there such belief consider one example. In Songhay, a language of African Sahara region, there are about 87 words pertaining to sand and 34 words for oasis. Each of these words has a specific reference to its individuality. If one has to translate a paragraph from Songhay language to a European language having almost single words for each of the sand and the oasis, then the one has to lose some information each time one so translates. This is a drawback of the languages and not of the existence i.e. the sand or the oasis. Languages are generated by the past experiences of that section of population. It contains only those descriptions which this society has already encountered in the past. For a new incident, the languages always hesitate as they are unequipped.
……
There are two types of subatomic particles – fermions and bosons. Fermions have some characteristic values assigned to them (called their quantum numbers) while the bosons do not. No two bosons are distinguishable from each other. Are they all one – as per the Law of Identity? If not, is this some illusion? Scientists say that these bosons contribute more than the contribution of fermions in this universe. Then, for being violative of the Law of Identity, is this world a hallucination? Those who cite Aristotle even for curing a rotten tooth will not find a satisfying answer here. Leave them.
……
Now come to “reason”. (As per Wikipedia) The concept of reason is connected to the concept of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word “logos”, later to be translated by Latin “ratio” and then French “raison”, from which the English word derived. As reason, rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word “reason” also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word “cause”.
A few things about “Reason” should be made clear. “Reason” is associated to those things which are the past experience. No reason can be addressed to some new situations. Nobody can reason the behaviour of a human body on a new planet. For that he needs to know the pressure, temperature, oxygen etc. over there and then he would relate those variables to his past experience as to how a varied composition of these variables affects a human body. Nobody can address a reason for a planet X having an atmosphere of gas Y and a temperature T and pressure P unless some pre-known values are given to these variables X, Y, T, and P. You cannot rely upon a reason until select to be revolving in a given periphery of already known situations.
……
Sciences put a limitation on the ultimate effort of revealation of “THE EXISTENCE”. One cannot go down breaking the matter beyond a particular level fixed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. One can not go beyond a particular distance in space and that limit is already there in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The existence is not available to you at all levels and all distances.
The existence is to be explored below the Heisenberg’s limit and beyond the Einstein’s limit. Science is not able to cross this scientific limit. New ways are to be devised. Age old tools of logic and reason, both made up of tautological material, are to be abandoned. New ways are to be evolved. But how? And what?
We will discuss it in the next article – “In The Pursuit Of Higher Consciousness”.
FOR COMPLETE ARTICLE PLEASE VISIT THE LINK BELOW
