Comments from a blog reader

It looks like my comments are violating bloggers char limit rules. So could not comment there. Will paste the same here. But would appreciate if you could put it somewhere on the net as it will draw considerable healthy discussion... Thanks in advance


The following is just my view as how things might have unfolded:

when the first human being/group thought about "WHY DID I COME HERE(EARTH)? WHERE DID I COME FROM? and similar questions..." solutions followed.


A line of thought started with the belief that we are here. So what next? We will know how we came from only by simulating/experimenting the conditions which existed before we came here. So they made some assumptions and started developing theories on them and experimenting them. A theory got accepted universally only when it was experimentally correct. This is what famous physicist Feynman tells in his book. So as time progressed human beings evolved, and many theories were disregarded and replaced by more correct ones. I am using the adjective more rather than using the word correct directly because we do not know if there is a better theory to replace the existing ones. Only time will tell. So the bottom line is all theories were constrained not by the thought process but by the outcomes of experimentation. I am not pointing that experimentation is bad but what was used for experimentation was of limited scope which was causing hinderance to the thought process. If you ask how? Let me take the example of black hole. The scientists however cannot create an artificial black hole on earth or if they create one they will not be the blessed ones to view the result of the experiment. So they bank on catching radiations from them so on & so forth. But in early days we did not have setup to catch the radiations from black holes and experimentally prove that a black hole exists there.


Like other thoughts an aspect of this line of thought is that they start from an hypothesis which is declared unquestionable as every other theory follows it. If the hypothesis tends to fail all the theories fail!


The second line of thought which believed in individual experience said the so called "universe" originated from GOD. Why did they say so? They said it because they experienced it through a means which cannot be published as a research paper or can be patented. While commenting here i do not know what is that method formally. I strictly oppose when someone says this line of thought lacks experimentation and so is scientifically in-correct. My comments against this claim are:


It has experimentation. But unlike the experimentation mentioned in the prior line of thought this experimentation is not limited by the technology around. It is limited by the thought process or we can call it mind. The steps involved in the experimentation can be described and effects also explained but in order to experience the effect one has to do the experiment himself. The experiment not being limited to the worldly things cannot be put in a framework defined by the prior line of thought. Meaning one cannot put the this line of thought into some mathematical formulae or a theory which might just be more correct than its ancestors. Which is why they say it is scientifically incorrect. But the flaw here is we are comparing two line of thoughts which value two different things.


Like the prior thought this thought might also have been based on a hypothesis[ref Manusmriti] Again if we consider the hypothesis as wrong this theory may also fail. So my question to its critics is why always fail only this line of thought “even your theory fails!”. For e.g. If we reject the hypothesis of Big bang theory, earth will never exist.


So to conclude my view


D V G yavaru in the book “Baligondu Nambike” defines the objectives a man should have.


Dharma
Artha
Kama
Moksha


I do not want to elaborate on Dharma & Moksha. It is better understood if read in its mother tongue i.e. read from D V G's words. He says Artha and Kama are the ones sustaining this earth and the human beings on it and the two should be within the boundary of Dharma and Moksha. Science helps us inspire innovation, provide better society, improve theories, sustain ideas on this earth but it should be used only for betterment not the other way round.

Probably my comment is exceeding the author's write up. But inevitable. Since the above are my views there is always room for debate and experimentation ;-) !


Yours truely,

--
Udaya M V

Education Informal
http://www.educationinformal.in

Virodhi - Palguna - Krishna - Panchami