Natural science in old scripture! To Vir & Other Religious believers
For last one hundred years, we see growing tendency of interpreting Quran, Upanishad etc. in terms of natural science. Funny thing is, all of a sudden everybody seems to understand Quantum Mechanics, Big-Bang theory etc. even if none has any background in classical mechanics or in experimentation.
What caused the problem?
Few senile physicists of course. Few of them were found of concept of 'non-dualism' in eastern philosophy. Name includes Tesla, Subramanyam Chandrashekhar, Edwin Tailor and many who's who in modern physics. However, what we have to note strongly, none of them tried to search natural science in the scripture. To them, non-dualism is a 'mythical philosphy' that seems to fit well with their spiritual needs. But then, some 'B' grade physicists, who could not make any name in proper science, tried to win cheap popularity and started writing books relating 'Maya' with quantum mechanics etc. One of such name is John Dobson, author of "Adaiya Vedanta and modern science".
For a sample, his logic goes like this:
1) All this is Brahman. Let a man meditate on that visible world as beginning, ending and breathing in it, the Brahman.
2) Now mind is, as it were, a sense of otherness in That.
3) In the changeless. In the infinite. In the undivided.
4) Its appearance is through the Gunas of which ignorance, Maya, is made.
5) Concealing, projecting, yet revealing, in the projected, something of that which is concealed.
6) As something of the rope is revealed in the snake for which it is mistaken.
7) As if, being hidden, through the veiling power of Tamas, the nature of Brahman, through the revealing power of Sattva, shone in the otherness for which, through the projecting power of Rajas, it is, as it were, mistaken.
8) By this Vivarta, the changeless, the infinite, the undivided as Asti-Bhati-Priya.
9) Giving rise to Parinama (transformation) in the causal, the subtle and the gross.
And then he relates this vedantic conjecture with modern science as
We can understand the attraction between the proton and the electron as the undividedness seen in the duality, just as we can understand the gravitational attraction of the protons for each other as the undividedness seen in the plurality. As a member of the duality, the proton sees itself (if we may use such language) as separated from the electron. As a member of the plurality, it sees itself as separated from the rest of the universe. But in either case it sees itself as small, and we can understand the self- repulsion of like charge as simply the infinitude seen in the apparent smallness. The gravitational energy of the primordial hydrogen can be understood as priya, the undivided seen in the apparently divided. The electrical energy of the primordial hydrogen can be understood as bhati, the infinite seen in the apparently finite. Bhati and Priya drive the change in which the changeless is seen as Asti, inertia. In the great-space, this is our primordial hydrogen. It arises through apparition, through the appearance of pairs of opposites, space against time, mass against energy, gravity against electricity, plus against minus and spin-up against spin-down, without any change in the changeless.
We have seen how, through relativity theory, modern science has been driven to the conclusion of the Advaita Vedantins that the first cause must be apparitional. The screen through which we see the reality must be the screen of apparitional causation — what the Vedantins call Maya. We have also seen how, through relativity theory, modern science has been driven to the conclusion that the nature of the reality which underlies the multifarious diversity in the world of our perceptions must be changeless, infinite and undivided. Finally, and this is the important point, we have seen that, through a careful analysis of apparitional causation we are able, at last, to understand why we see a universe of hydrogen and not something else.
What we see here and we also see same in the logic of Vir Gupta and people alike.
What this people do not realize is
'What is the definition and scope of a theory in physics"
Science by definition is repeatable observable truth. Science is not a collection of theories or the assumptions made for the formulation of the theories or neither conclusions/interpretation from an equation unless any of it is experimentally verified.
An example from the last debate can be cited:
Electron's spin is a theoretical postulate that has been used to match experimental results in Zeeman's splitting or in Fine structure splitting.
Truth here is the wave number difference that we can measure in fine structure splitting. That is science. Intrinsic angular momentum of electron is an assumption/model and in future there can be a experimental result is deviating, we search for a better theory or a better model. No model is an absolute truth, but just a tool to understand the reality conformed by state-of-the art experiments.
So, effort to relate old philosophy with modern science is absolute garbage, since old scriptures never recorded any experimental observation (that is the only science) that led to the foundation of modern theories. Also, advanced mathematics needed to explain these observation was absent. So, only a few lunatics or perfect idiots can think of relating modern natural science with religious scripture.
I hope none of our beloved Muktomona readers is lunatic enough to spend his time on it!
[Mukto-mona] [Articles] [Recent Debate] [Special Event ] [Moderators] [Forum]