The tale of Western knowledge - Right physics but messed up metaphysics

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The problem with the western science is it lacks the firm foundation that is necessary to erect any body of knowledge. This is where metaphysics fits in. You need to build your knowledge based on some firm premises and assumptions, the only qualification for such metaphysics being the clarity in its conception. Science by not accommodating anything not based on evidence, is bound to face this problem due to lack of such foundation at some point or other.

What do the members think on this regard?

 

[tks]

The problem with the western science is it lacks the firm foundation that is necessary to erect any body of knowledge. This is where metaphysics fits in. You need to build your knowledge based on some firm premises and assumptions, the only qualification for such metaphysics being the clarity in its conception. Science by not accommodating anything not based on evidence, is bound to face this problem due to lack of such foundation at some point or other.

What do the members think on this regard?

'Firm foundation' is a vague and subjective notion. Knowledge taught (not preached) in Vedanta is in harmony with particular knowledge that we learn as science.

So, in my view, the thesis of the op lacks firm foundation

 

[sravna]

'Firm foundation' is a vague and subjective notion. Knowledge taught (not preached) in Vedanta is in harmony with particular knowledge that we learn as science.

So, in my view, the thesis of the op lacks firm foundation

Dear Shri TKS,

I thought I made myself clear. When I said lack of foundation, I meant you do not really have a unified perspective for the various explanations of science. There isn't a framework accommodating the disparate knowledge of science. You observe something. Come up with an explanation of why it happens. You then observe a contradictory phenomenon and try to reconcile it with previous knowledge. This approach if it gives to an approach where you brush the big picture first and let the pieces automatically fit in. IMO, it is neater and simplifies your task considerably.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Shri TKS,

I thought I made myself clear. When I said lack of foundation, I meant you do not really have a unified perspective for the various explanations of science. There isn't a framework accommodating the disparate knowledge of science. You observe something. Come up with an explanation of why it happens. You then observe a contradictory phenomenon and try to reconcile it with previous knowledge. This approach if it gives to an approach where you brush the big picture first and let the pieces automatically fit in. IMO, it is neater and simplifies your task considerably.

Sri Sravna,

Honestly, though I could understand and accept your claims, kindly permit me to seek some clarifications for myself and others in general, so that your thoughts/views can further be projected, clarifying the doubts of wider audiance.

what I understand is, though science goes back and forth in its examinations of phenomena and comes up with concrete ideas/solutions/inventions, it substantiates its validity that could be understood and well accepted in common. And those are the things that we humans could utilize to the best of our benefit, tangibly.

Science as an understable, experimental and universally acceptable subject tends to look for substantial evidences and proves the validity of the experimental outcome.

Now my question is - What can be the possible unified perspective on which scientific explanations need to be based upon and how that unified perspective can made to be acceptable by every one including those who don't believe in the existence of absolute consciousness? The absolute consciousness that infact makes scientific explanations/explorations/inventions possible and tangible. On what grounds the big picture can be identified and established such that the pieces can be made to fit in automatically? Such that science need not to resort to looking upon back and forth with plenty of hypothesis and then arrive at a conclusion.

I may have mistaken your explanations and thus posing the above questions. Kindly clarify.

 

[sravna]

Sri Sravna,

Honestly, though I could understand and accept your claims, kindly permit me to seek some clarifications for myself and others in general, so that your thoughts/views can further be projected, clarifying the doubts of wider audiance.

what I understand is, though science goes back and forth in its examinations of phenomena and comes up with concrete ideas/solutions/inventions, it substantiates its validity that could be understood and well accepted in common. And those are the things that we humans could utilize to the best of our benefit, tangibly.

Science as an understable, experimental and universally acceptable subject tends to look for substantial evidences and proves the validity of the experimental outcome.

Now my question is - What can be the possible unified perspective on which scientific explanations need to be based upon and how that unified perspective can made to be acceptable by every one including those who don't believe in the existence of absolute consciousness? The absolute consciousness that infact makes scientific explanations/explorations/inventions possible and tangible. On what grounds the big picture can be identified and established such that the pieces can be made to fit in automatically? Such that science need not to resort to looking upon back and forth with plenty of hypothesis and then arrive at a conclusion.

I may have mistaken your explanations and thus posing the above questions. Kindly clarify.

Excellent questions Ravi. What I meant by an unified perspective is something that links the varied knowledge of science as a common thread. Our Hindu philosophy could well be that or at least could be the starting point. So for example, you might have the following premises:

1. There is something called spiritual energy other than the normal physical energy we know.
2. It might be thought to extend beyond space and time
3. and so on ......

We might need the premises 1 and 2, to say, get around the problem of origin of universe.

With similar premises we should be able to build a high level knowledge of the universe which is self consistent and which should be able to explain at a high level the various phenomena in the world. Once we do that we have a basis and then test its soundness. So only then we have to start looking for actual evidence and test our high level understanding. So once we find the metaphysics satisfactory, there is less likely to be contradictions later because of its self consistency. We also have a holistic perspective of the universe and see the big picture which IMO is very desirable.

The metaphysics is like the computer algorithm. And science is like the actual program code. You can write the code without consciously writing down the algorithm but algorithm has a clear cut purpose: To focus on the important and fundamental aspects and let the details fit in automatically later.

 

[C RAVI]

Excellent questions Ravi. What I meant by an unified perspective is something that links the varied knowledge of science as a common thread. Our Hindu philosophy could well be that or at least could be the starting point. So for example, you might have the following premises:

1. There is something called spiritual energy other than the normal physical energy we know.
2. It might be thought to extend beyond space and time
3. and so on ......

We might need the premises 1 and 2, to say, get around the problem of origin of universe.

With similar premises we should be able to build a high level knowledge of the universe which is self consistent and which should be able to explain at a high level the various phenomena in the world. Once we do that we have a basis and then test its soundness. So only then we have to start looking for actual evidence and test our high level understanding. So once we find the metaphysics satisfactory, there is less likely to be contradictions later because of its self consistency. We also have a holistic perspective of the universe and see the big picture which IMO is very desirable.

The metaphysics is like the computer algorithm. And science is like the actual program code. You can write the code without consciously writing down the algorithm but algorithm has a clear cut purpose: To focus on the important and fundamental aspects and let the details fit in automatically later.

Thank you very much for your detailed explanations, Shri Sravna.

As you said, Metaphysics are given least importance or no considerations to remain focused on consistent matters while indulging in Scientific explorations.
Hindu Spiritual philosophies are sound enough to form a strong basis of experimental database that can help considerable consistency in scientific explorations.

I believe, many of the scientific research are backed up by the subtle understanding of metaphysics that many scientists tend to refrain from revealing. Knowingly or unknowingly

As the scientists Shri.Amit Goswamy (theoretical Quantum Physicist, a link provided by Renuka in "God Exists" thread), a Hindu, a Theists converted from self proclaimed Atheist, has stated that Science is sailing seperate on seperateness. This seperateness if eliminated and sailed along with Spiritual philosophies, understanding the spiritual energies, it would be clear that Science is existing, would continue to exists and would explore lot more Only With The Willingness Of Absolute Consiousnes (beyond space and time) that could cause provoking thoughts and actions and could turn possibilities into actuality.

As you said, if Spiritual philosophies are well taken into account and spiritual energies are well understood & accepted by material science, lot many things can be systematically explored and more importantly can be more for the betterment of the society.

 

[sarma-61]

I believe that whatever has happened in, and has been achieved by, science till date and whatsoever will happen in future, are all due to the infinite grace and guidance of the Supreme Power controlling this Universe. Just as IT gave a positive impulse to science about 500 or so years ago, if need be, IT will give further booster doses or, even bring about the very cessation of all science.

Science in one way is "tapasyA", like what we read in puranas that our devas, rishis, asuras or even rAkshasas performed and, as a result of which, they acquired superhuman and even super daivik power. If the power due to such scientific tapasyA gets into the control of wrong minds, then such powers are used to harass the population and ultimately God destroys such wrong people.

The "holistic" argument does not sound valid to me. Since the Supreme Power is simply beyond human comprehension at its best, science cannot have any 'broad picture' to start with and then proceed on that basis. Talking about "spiritual energy" which is beyond space & time, is like naming an as yet unborn/unconcieved baby, imho; we have as of today, no shred of evidence in the physical realm about any such "spiritual" energy.

Like a child collecting sea shells on the sea shore, scientists will have to go on collecting the innumerable small drops of knowledge about how this universe seem to work. (I am deliberately using the words "seem to work" because, as an advaitin brahmana myself, I believe that what we (including the scientists) think is the principle which is behind physical phenomena, are all 'shadows' of the true causes and we are only seeing some sort of "nizhal kootthu" here.)

Whether science will ultimately be able to unravel that Supreme Power in all its glory will deepend on whether scientists get that level of "shraddhA" which our ancient sages and seers had and had enquired using such shraddhA about that Supreme Reality, although from an entirely different perspective.

 

[sravna]

When I talk of metaphysics, I am not talking of spiritual knowledge but something that is intermediate between the spiritual knowledge and today's scientific knowledge. Since the truths that need to be grasped are deeper, it essentially will be more strongly intuitive and hence more holistic than the intuition that has given forth to present scientific knowledge. For that to happen, at the very least we need to appreciate the need for such a framework. IMO that is the best way to hasten scientific progress as you will begin pick up a number of connections among pieces of knowledge which you miss when you exclusively focus on your ultra super specialities.

 

[prasad1]

I find this dichotomy between science and religion is only in Abrahamic religion.
It happens because of written words. The writing may have been true at the time of writing, but now are dated and outdated.
In Hinduism you can find what you want, depending on your interpretations. That is why I sometimes have problem in this site when people get too bogged down on Historical writings be it Ramayan, mahabharata, or any other books. We have to accept the gist principles and not worry about the literal or historical significance.
If (and only if) we accept the principle that everything happens in Brahman, then there is no conflict. Good and bad, God&devil everything exist in Brahman.

 

[Yamaka]

The problem with the western science is it lacks the firm foundation that is necessary to erect any body of knowledge. This is where metaphysics fits in. You need to build your knowledge based on some firm premises and assumptions, the only qualification for such metaphysics being the clarity in its conception. Science by not accommodating anything not based on evidence, is bound to face this problem due to lack of such foundation at some point or other.

What do the members think on this regard?

Dear Sravna:

Your title "The Tale of Western Knowledge - Right Physics but messed up metaphysics" is very confusing with what the OP states.

You know very well metaphysics is

"the philosophical study of the natural reality, concerned with such questions as the existence of God...."

​

You also know very well that Science is totally different from the questions of the existence of God etc.

Then, why to try to bring them together? They are two entirely different matter!

You bring only unnecessary heart pain for the Believers!

Cheers.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Y,

I used the term metaphysics in the sense of underlying philosophy or a high level description of knowledge.

 

[renuka]

The problem with the western science is it lacks the firm foundation that is necessary to erect any body of knowledge. This is where metaphysics fits in. You need to build your knowledge based on some firm premises and assumptions, the only qualification for such metaphysics being the clarity in its conception. Science by not accommodating anything not based on evidence, is bound to face this problem due to lack of such foundation at some point or other.

What do the members think on this regard?

Dear Sravna,

Actually I have no problems with Physics and Metaphysics.It's nothing new to the Vedic.
It only becomes a problem when both start to clash with each other and view each other as being in the opposite ends of the spectrum.

If we can accept the fact that we have the Gross Body,Subtle Body and the Causal Body so let us just accept the fact that Physics deals with the Gross aspect of the Universe and Metaphysics deals the with Subtle aspect of the Universe.

The foundation of Physics lies the Gross World and the foundation of Metaphysics lies in the Subtle World and both are in the Substratum of Brahman.

 

[sravna]

I agree with you Renuka and that is exactly my point. Just the gross body derives from the subtle body and doesn't exist by itself, I contend that knowledge about the physical world should have a basis. Right now we have only superficial description and understanding of reality which therefore is in need of a good metaphysics.

Dear Sravna,

Actually I have no problems with Physics and Metaphysics.It's nothing new to the Vedic.
It only becomes a problem when both start to clash with each other and view each other as being in the opposite ends of the spectrum.

If we can accept the fact that we have the Gross Body,Subtle Body and the Causal Body so let us just accept the fact that Physics deals with the Gross aspect of the Universe and Metaphysics deals the with Subtle aspect of the Universe.

The foundation of Physics lies the Gross World and the foundation of Metaphysics lies in the Subtle World and both are in the Substratum of Brahman.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

CERN's recent research ended wrongly because of a snapped wire. Whether to catch the elephant which is trying to push itself out of a small window or a rat dancing and jay-walking through a massive gate?

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Shri Y,

I used the term metaphysics in the sense of underlying philosophy or a high level description of knowledge.

Dear Sravna:

You mean "in the sense of underlying philosophy or a high level description of knowledge" NOT relating to God or God Concept?

I thought metaphysics always targeted towards the understanding of God or God Concept.

Maybe, I am wrong??!!

Cheers.