The goal of the Vedas and Physics is same, but while the Vedas search for and find out God through contemplation, physics searches for the ultimate Reality through mathematical deductions. The Vedas, more so the Upanishads which are the concluding portions of different chapters of the four Vedas- Rik, Sam, Yajur and Atharva, want the seekers of Truth adopt the process of discrimination ( neti, neti - not this, not this) to realize the Truth which is timeless and infinite. The physicists also agree that the cosmos is boundless and timeless (despite Stephen Hawking's theory). They even cannot conjecture how many solar systems are there or how many stars. While the physicists move in the labyrinthine zone, the Vedantists have succeeded. According to the Vedantins, the ultimate Reality which is the source of our origin and our destination is Brahman or Self or God. It is both manifest and unmanifest, and even beyond them. The physicists deal with the manifest or phenomenal world while the Vedantins travel into the noumenal sphere, of course mentally, which is actually real. Thus while the physicists are still in the dark, the Vedantins are enlightened. This is why Einstein said: Philosophy begins where Science ends.
I think both the question and answer/view are entwined in the statement itself and the purpose here is more for a debate on the origin of universe or life rather than seeking an absolute answer which by all means is non-existent.
While I'm no expert in this area (and guess nobody is or will be in a foreseeable future), my two pennies is that both the views of physicists and philosophers are subjective and bound to conflict. The views are opinionated merely by a life form called "human being" at a time scale of existence of few thousand years which possibly occupies a space of a molecule in the backdrop of the massive time scale of billions of years of the known universe wherein many other life forms emerged and became extinct.
The whole system works regardless of anyone's views or beliefs however few smart people try hard and understand working of a few nuts and bolts therein.
Dear Subhasish,
Your answer is excellent. Please edit it for the sake of greater excellence.
Best,
Sibaprasad
Dear James,
The question is there already and discussion has started.
Best,
Sibaprasad
Thanks Dr. Dutta.
Although the topic is not the usual science or tech stuff that bubbles up in the forum like RG, it however opens up a possibility to step back, relax and contemplate on our own origin.
Dear Subhasish,
Not always, topics with regard to science and technology make us inquisitive and propel us to participate in the discussion. Other issues relating to Art, Literature, Economics, History and Culture are also raised in RG. The issue of our origin and destination is the basic and elemental, and caught the attention of thinker in an age when science and technology were not in the field so strongly as they are now. This issue has not been resolved and men will continue to pursue this issue as long as they are here. Of course, not all thinkers will embrace the issue, but there will be souls who will.
Sibaprasad
Dear Sibaprasad,
I disagree.
The physicists search better and improved mathematical theories which may account for the behavior of as much aspects of realities as possible. But contrary to the mystics, they admit from the start that they will never reach to the ultimate truth and admit from the start that all they discovered is only approximative and far to revealt all aspects of reality. Physic is only about what maya or appeartance can vindicated while the mystic says that they can reach beyond appearances. Another fundamental differences is that the mystic are speaking about an experience of the ultimate reality while the physists are talking about an outer expression into the mathematical language about reality. While the mystics always says to go beyond language , the physists never intended to go beyond language and are not talking about their personal experience at all. So I see the two searches very very different and the type of truth also very different.
One has to speak and the Other Can't. I wonder if One that is both could counter my argument? I wonder if trying to be both would be mutually beneficiary?
The created can be seen. The creating cannot as the seeing Eye cannot.
Not always even the truth seekers were completely right in their quest to understand nature. Many things were theorized and then discarded due to lack of enough evidence.
However, one thing that stands apart is the evolution of human mind that never stopped asking questions and questioning rationale of theories behind our own existence.
With a modest journey from the flawed Geocentric model in the ancient Greece (Ptolemic theory) to the introduction of refined model of solar system (Heliocentric model of Copernicus, Kepler) in 16th century, followed by Newtonian mechanics, scientific evidence in evolution of life (Darwin), then Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1916 and finally a direct evidence of gravitational wave noted at LIGO this week.....it is quite a enlightening walk that human race dares to pave to unravel the jigsaw puzzle of the nature.
Dear Subhasish,
Your scientific explanation is excellent. Still the question remains with regard to the source of the origin of the universe itself. This is an everlasting riddle that will continue to haunt the minds of the seekers of Truth which is synonymous with Reality.
Sibaprasad
Dear Subhasish,
Your scientific explanation is excellent. Still the question remains with regard to the source of the origin of the universe itself. This is an everlasting riddle that will continue to haunt the minds of the seekers of Truth which is synonymous with Reality.
Sibaprasad
Dear Louis Brassard,
There are not 'realities' but only Reality. Probably, by 'realities' you mean phenomena or the created objects. However, not all created objects including beings are visible. What we see are appearances. The Reality is behind them. It is noumenon behind the phenomena.The physicists try to explore the Reality through mathematical deductions while the mystics arrive at certain assumptions ( called so by the scientists) which have enough reasoning. The Vedas ( including Vedanta) give us an idea of the Reality. Scientific investigation and mystic investigation are different approaches to solving the riddle. Yet both the processes go on.
If you don't mind, I would request you to edit your post. The errors are great stumbling blocks in the way of easily understanding what you mean to say.
Best regards,
Sibaprasad
Dear Louis,
With regard to your post: the created can be seen; the creating cannot be as the seeing Eye cannot see (it), I would simply say that things that cannot be seen also exist like I exist though you cannot see me. The physical eye is too incapable of seeing everything that is there; we require a discerning eye. Knowledge comes from other sources than through our sense organs; inference, deduction, induction, authority - are the media of acquiring knowledge too.
Best,
Sibaprasad
Sibaprasad,
When I say that the creating cannot seen, I do not want to say that our senses are not efficient source of knowledge. First we should not limit the sense as sensor of external data. The senses are not dum sensors, they are create most of what we perceive by only taking what they actually sensed from outside as constrainted and not as the main source of what they create. All we learn from language is from the senses. Language is part of the sense and most of your interpretation of what other tell you is not from the words but what you created out of them as only contraints. Even your language itself had to be learned and it came from other and it was created in the history of your people. But to learn it, you had to create the interpretation and the same from all the content of the tradition. And when you learn something from other, again you have to create most of it again with the senses.
Best
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics