Theoretical Physics, Philosophy, and Hinduism
“Solutions are right one way and wrong on the other.”
This story is basically a conversation that I had the other day with a fellow physics enthusiast who also believed in the teachings of Hinduism. The prime statement that ignited the conversation between the two of us was this: Do you think religion and science are/can be compatible? In fact, I also ran a poll on Twitter about this, and surprisingly 1363 people voted. These were its results:
Of course, we had different perspectives toward science and religion in general and there were a lot of things that he mentioned that I didn’t quite agree with very well and vice-versa. It wouldn’t be appropriate to name him in this piece so I’m going to name him A and myself B. Before we get into it, let us understand that these are just opinions of two people. The intention is not to hurt anyone’s religious, scientific, or political sentiments.
A: Religion personalizes and romanticizes the term “God” too much. Religion has its Philosophy. Western, eastern, middle, everywhere. But the truth is, it was a practice to describe reality but some made it blind faith. And one thing is that there is greater Philosophy than those mentioned in Vedas and its 6 schools of thought. You can compare all the Philosophies. Samkhya and Vaisheshika are purely natural Philosophy. Samkhya tells the most fundamental nature of everything whereas Vaisheshika is purely scientific methodology. Vaisheshika mentions two ways of gaining knowledge 1. Perception 2. Inference. Just like Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon thought in the medieval era of western Philosophy that inspired entire modern Philosophers and physicists Like Rene Descarte, Beruch, Spinoza, and Sir Issac Newton and that's how we have come this far. Religion comes when you personalize thinking and perception. Natural philosophy is the thing that one needs to take from religion.
B: Hmm, interesting. I should have a few words with you in this regard. I’ve been interested in comparative religion for quite some time now.
A: Well for this, one needs to understand the chronology of thoughts in history. Christianity failed as Bacons-league established what we now call scientific methodology: observation, postulation, prediction. Modern science rests on these methods. You belong to a Muslim community I guess, you know it better. Hindu Philosophy has two perspectives: one that considers god and another that doesn’t. One that considers god is called Bhakta like most people in the Hindu religion. Another perspective is the one that doesn’t consider God- Charvaka, Ajivika, Jain, and Baudha, don’t consider God. Upanishads have 6 schools also derived from Vedas: Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Vedanta, and Mimamsa. Among these Samkhya and Vaisheshika is pure scientific thought who don’t know the term what we commonly refer to as “God”. Samkhya tells three Gunas ( property or quality) of everything in the universe:
Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.
These three properties have our own ethical meaning and physical meaning which we need as a physicist to define our Physical Universe. The crisis of Philosophical thoughts in our modern science can be covered with what call alpha, beta, and gamma properties of everything in the universe,
B: What made you think that I belong to a Muslim community?
A: I heard in a podcast, no offense. I am sorry if I am wrong. What I actually meant was that you must’ve been raised in a Muslim family just like I have been raised in a Hindu family but I do not consider myself a Hindu. I am a naturalist. That’s all. Anyway, religion is a Philosophy, irrational philosophy in most cases. But some civilization has damn good thoughts.
B: It’s fascinating to think about the association of what a physicist needs or might need in order to define the physical universe with the ideologies provided by Sattva, Raja, and Tama as you mentioned but that sounds more like a philosophical standpoint to me, not physical. In the field of physics, we’ve made more progress and we’ll continue to make so using the methods of pure science rather than philosophy. The ethical values that modern religion presents might be a good discussion in a metaphysical sense but I highly doubt they have any contribution to modern physical discoveries.
I come from an extremely religious Hindu familial background. But I’m an atheist.
A: You know zero energy quantum oscillator or zero Point energy???
B: I wouldn’t say I’m an expert on that, but go on. I have studied to some extent ZPE in my undergrad quantum mechanics classes. What’s the point?
A: As you know, a vacuum can’t be empty or a very fundamental nature matter or energy can’t be at zero vibration or a zero energy state doesn’t exist. Right. Samkhya Philosophy said this already. Prakriti (Matter) arises from the most fundamental state which exists as nothing but isn’t anything completely. This much penetrating power is enough to blow my mind.
योजनानम द्वे द्व सते द्वे च योजने अाकेन निमिसार्देन क्रमनन नमोस्तुते।
This is the value of the speed of light which is almost close to our current value. The velocity according to this verse is 305068.75 km/sec. Even Bhagavad Puran mentions something like Plank time, which is the smallest conceivable chunk of time. I couldn’t find the exact value but it is mentioned. The smallest entity of matter is “anu” the time taken by light (Rashmi) to cross the radius of that “anu” is the smallest value of time that remains from Shrishti (creation) to pralaya (end). I remember 10^-43 sec.
B: Yes, we can associate the writings of scriptures with the findings of modern science. With that logic, it would be unfair to not include the verses of Qu’ran that says in chapter no. 21 verse no. 30, I guess, that the heavens and the earth were joined together at the beginning of time and then they exploded. Quite some resemblance to the big bang theory, right? Islamists often claim that they had this idea way before anyone ever populated it. I can give a hundred examples of resemblances of modern scientific findings in not just Qu’ran but also in Vedas and the biblical mythologies, both the new and the old testament. But the point is, that many of these scriptures have contradictory stories. What scripture would you consider as correct? Do they make any sense in terms of how they resemble a few scientific phenomena or findings and contradict many others? The point is, whether or not we need any moral grounds from religion and religious scriptures in order to progress in science or to differentiate between what’s right and what’s wrong.
A: Well Well, Science has more affinity to dealing with nature as it is based on experimental facts. But my plan is to convert mathematical versions of ancient thoughts specifically mentioned in Hindu Scriptures. Samkhya more specifically. Who knows what is hidden in those texts. Theoretical Physics has gone so far that it is facing mathematical and Philosophical crises. Also, experimental support is poor for present-day Physics. I don’t think the theory of everything will be decoded as some theorists are claiming. What everything is is a part of the greatest and most generalized reality, also called Param Yatartha or Param Satya.
Real mathematics should be developed from these three properties: sattva, rajas, and tamas.
Maybe you find me religious but I am a rationalist and naturalist.
There is no god. What exists is nature and that’s all.
That's what Samkhya says.
B: I didn’t quite understand your statement where you said Physics is facing “mathematical and philosophical crises.” And I also disagree with the point where you said, an experiment is poor for present-day physics. I wonder what made you think so.
A: The poor experiment is in a sense that 1. We can’t really detect Multi-dimensions of string theory right. 2. We are able to detect the velocity difference between high-frequency light and low-frequency light as predicted by Loop quantum gravity. Because it needs extremely sensitive detectors 3. Where are supersymmetric particles?? If it is correct, then its fails or poor experimental Physics. If it's not real it's a fallacy of theoretical Physics. 4. Vacuum catastrophe is the worst theoretical prediction of the most successful theory of all time- the QFT. 5. Where are gravitons ??
The list has a lot to mention.
Physics ends where mathematics ends. Both go parallelly with Philosophical thoughts and experimental tests.
B: Those questions are not limitations of physics, neither do they, in any way, imply that an experiment is a poor judge of scientific truth. Of course, we have several unanswered questions in modern physics, be it string theory, or the existence of gravitons, or loop quantum gravity. These are potential theories of quantum gravity. And I’m using the word “potential” because they are promising yet somehow incomplete, or are yet to be proven. Rolling back to your statement, physicists, or any scientist for that matter, never say that we “can’t” prove this or prove that, we always either talk in terms of possibilities or we say “we haven’t been able to, so far”. Just because we haven’t been able to prove certain theories so far, or we have many answered questions, or we haven’t been able to design an experiment, doesn’t mean it’s a fallacy of theoretical physics as a whole. In fact, these are the questions that drive physics forward. There are some good theories, some bad theories, some theories are well tested and hence we establish them as a scientific fact, and some theories fail. That’s how science works.
I also disagree with the point where you said Physics goes parallelly with philosophical thoughts and experimental tests. Experimental tests? Yes! Mathematical reasoning? Big yes! Philosophical thoughts? NO! That might sound like an optimistic approach to science but consider this example, black holes were merely theoretical predictions back between the 1910s and 30s. If you go back in time and tell the people of the 18th century about such an entity in space that “sucks” everything in, they’re going to think either you are totally insane or that entity is a demon. No, since we have made significant progress in this regard, we know that it’s true, and it’s a beautiful truth.
A: Well, it's actually a fallacy of grammar as you mistook my opinion. I didn’t mean its limitation of Physics but it's a limitation of present-day conception. It is a limitation of what we know today. New experiments should be able to establish some facts to continue our journey further. Theoretical Physics rests on facts established in past and limitations found in past theories. You know it well.
B: I know you didn’t say it’s a limitation. It’s me who’s saying that to support the latter part of my response. Exactly, a new experiment. That’s right. New experiments have to be designed. Experiments. Because they are big lead. They, to a great extent, if not solely, determine what’s right and what’s wrong. I, as a physics enthusiast, wouldn’t associate experiments with a “poor” judge for scientific truth.
A: Well, I always think that everything we know today is a special case of some general reality. What is that generalized version that gives me the highest level of dopamine? Being optimistic is good but one thing is TOE is just a myth. Myth in a sense that there is no universal alarm that rings and tells “stop this is the end of Physics.” which means we don’t know the boundary of what we call “ everything”.
“Solutions are right one way and wrong on the other.”
as Gödel once Said.
But we should not stop doing science.
B: Uh-huh! good perspective of the TOE. I think even if we found one, it wouldn’t be the “end” of physics. It might sound a little paradoxical, but I think it will raise more questions than it might answer.
It’s about perspective. I’m not sure if Gödel ever said that though. There are many statements he made that I don’t agree with very well.
A: If so Gödel's solutions are also wrong on the other. Destroys his theory by itself.
B: Gödel is best known for mathematically proving the unprovability of mathematical statements. He was the king of all paradoxical ideas.
A: Paradoxes and conspiracies, both are more interesting than reality.
Thank you so much for reading. If you liked this story don’t forget to press that clap icon. If you like my works and want to support me then you can become a medium member by using this link or buy me a coffee ☕️. Keep following for more such stories.