Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Actually I know what the theorems are, knowing about them I wasn`t convinced that what you said a while ago was generally true. Therefore I asked you to demonstrate it to me.

I have seen so many allusions to Godel`s incompleteness theorems that it appears that it is a good buzzword -I doubt that many people have actually spent the time to try to understand what they say.

regards

Wasiq (45):

es, math is beautiful.

Godel`s theorems suprised mathematicians when they were first presented and devasted hope of unifying mathematics and making the mathematics only a manipulation of symbols under prescribed axioms.

I am certainly not an expert in the area of mathematical logic and ``godel grammer`` does not click anything. But there is someting called godel numbering on which Godel very important ``Diagonal Lemma`` is based and several other results. I will have to brush it up before I can say more about it.

Wasiq,

Correction: Einstein was talking about Reality as perceived by the senses.

Regards

Re: Wasiq (47)

`` I believe that I have indeed seen who you describe as the `seer`.``

I am not sure. Perhaps, it may be just quibbling over semantics.

``The difference between us is about the origin and nature of the `seer`. ``

Origin implies a beginning and an end, which I refute. I suggest a changeless reality as the `seer` that is the background over which plays this ephemeral, everchanging life. Correct me if I am wrong, but you suggest that we are ephemeral to our core, with no underlying reality. The nature of `seer` can be only inferred by the dialectics of language, which is what we are engaged in. We could probably sketch an elaborate cosmogony but that would only be a pale shadow of the reality. To paraphrase,(Rig Veda?), it is neither this nor that, neither not-this nor

not-that, neither this and that nor not this and that, neither this or that nor not this or that. In other words, the negation of logic which is the highest form of dialectic of the intellect, as a tool in comprehending the `seer`. As Einstein said, `Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.` He was talking of reality as perceived by Science.

`` However, all of us face the peril of deluding ourselves. ``

We delude ourselves every minute we live, by being the slaves of our minds, rather than controlling it and directing it. So that much, we should be able to agree on. As to the path beyond that, if it is not persuasive enough from the core of our being, then I say desist, for it will lead nowhere.

Regards

Re: Venki (46)

``WHO wants to know?``

I believe that I have indeed seen who you describe as the `seer`. The difference between us is about the origin and nature of the `seer`. I thought that was what we had been talking about all along.

You`re right about meditation, it is developed over time, just like everything else. However, all of us face the peril of deluding ourselves.

-W

Re: Wasiq (43)

`` I will then just have to try this experiment again for myself.``

The `experiment` (more precisely, the way of living) needs sustained, dedicated, persistent and intense effort. Even as marathon runners, weight lifters or body builders need single-minded devotion and long hours of practice, to hone their physique in their pursuit, a seeker has to be much more persistent. Best Wishes.

`` I have tried meditating, for many years of my life, but I have never been able to see the `seer`. But then you would say that I was not clearing my mind enough. ``

The endeavor is to reduce the fluctuations of the consciousness and still it. Meditation involves control of the mind, reducing its fluctuations, focusing and concentrating it and finally emptying it. The other part involves weakening the hold of the ego (our identification with the psychophysical system) and its eventual dissolution. You may be interested in looking into the eight-fold path of yoga. Any good translation of Patanjali`s Yogasutra (aka `Raja Yoga`) may be a good place to start. But ultimately practice is the only path.

`` My question would be: How does one know that one is not concocting the `seer` from one`s imagination? ``

WHO wants to know???

``I have personally concocted many things in some episodes of my life, and they are every bit as real as anything else. Godot asked a question, and a part of my reply to it was: ``If a lunatic in an asylum thinks that he is the king of the land, is he really so?`` I know that I have the capacity to be a lunatic, so how do I know whether the `seer` actually exists or is a figment of my overactive imagination?``

WHO IS the possessor of this overactive imagination???

WHO can control and rein in this overactive imagination???

Re: Goga(44)

Terribly sorry for questioning, however since you do have an understanding of this result, and I do have some mathematical understanding, maybe you could demonstrate to me, at least semi-formally, what would be the limits of his theorems?

It`s okay, we can talk math, no one else is listening :) (Plus I must admit I have a secret fetish for metamathematics!) I would love to talk Godel grammar for once ...

best regards
Wasiq

Godel`s icompleteness theorems are negative results pertaining to logical systems such as mathematics. Since science and philosophy are profoundly related to logic, used Godel`s reference. So my friend I know enough math to understand what Godel is saying but this is not a place for exact formulations of his ideas.

All I can say that his results have very important implications to what we can do with our logical thought or computing machines. As Paul Cohen has shown incompleteness cannot be taken lightly.

Re: Venki

I will then just have to try this experiment again for myself. I have tried meditating, for many years of my life, but I have never been able to see the `seer`. But then you would say that I was not clearing my mind enough.

My question would be: How does one know that one is not concocting the `seer` from one`s imagination? I have personally concocted many things in some episodes of my life, and they are every bit as real as anything else. Godot asked a question, and a part of my reply to it was: ``If a lunatic in an asylum thinks that he is the king of the land, is he really so?`` I know that I have the capacity to be a lunatic, so how do I know whether the `seer` actually exists or is a figment of my overactive imagination?

I will defer the discussion of there being as `essence` of things to another time, since that topic is very vast, and my knowledge of it is very sketchy. But off the top of my head, the opinions of Heidegger and his camp on this may be interesting to you.

regards,
Wasiq

Re: Wasiq (41)

`` Earlier in replies to this article, there was a mention of the ``second law of enthropy``, without any understanding about what it really says and hence a wonderfully amusing reference to it.``

I understand the need for precision in definitions and need for rigor. The allusion to entrophy was an attempt to convey a certain idea rather than the use of the term in its strictly classical thermodynamic sense. Maybe I should have clarified that before using that term, so as to avoid misunderstanding.

``Some concepts need not be undefined buzzwords which anyone can summon at will to support any argument.``

If that helps in better understanding, I will desist from using scientific terminology that has a precise meaning and not transpose them into a different context:)

Regards.

Re: Goga (40)

``Even some experiments in the philosophical domain will remain unconclusive as Godel and others have shown.``

It is probably better to first understand what Godel really says before making any declarations. Earlier in replies to this article, there was a mention of the ``second law of enthropy``, without any understanding about what it really says and hence a wonderfully amusing reference to it.

Some concepts need not be undefined buzzwords which anyone can summon at will to support any argument. While that may work in a domain where people would not like to define what they want to talk about, in the physical sciences or mathematics, unfortunately, this luxury is not present.

So please, if you must quote Godel, then do it in a proper context.

cheers

Re: Wasiq (37)

``dil kay behlanay ko Ghalib yeh khayyal acha hai!``.

Ditto.

Re: Godot (36)

As I reiterated before, I agree with you that a debate that does not lead to action and practice is pointless. But even debates leave their imprint on the mind and hence on the consciousness. They can stay in the subconscious for long or sometimes they can come to the surface and push one to action. Of course, this action could be progressive or regressive:)

Re: Wasiq (35)

`` (a) What is this direct observation? Please give me a specific example(s).

(b) Why is one necessarily led to the conclusion that a simpler (material) explanation will not suffice? ``

Re: (a)

We are both agreed that we want to break from the

bondage and the limitations of the mind. Yet, we rely on the mind for observation in our daily life. Take absent-mindedness as an example. Your eyes may see and the ears may hear, but if your mind is not attached to these senses, you go `What was that again?`, since you really don`t see or listen. We are all familiar with the complaint that we are not paying attention, meaning the mind was not focused. The senses are thus necessarily the instrumnets of the mind. But mind as I said is the closest to the object, the external world. It is not the subject, the seer. If we use the mind to observe the seer, we are treating the subject as on object and we won`t observe anything since the mind is inadequate. So we come away with the conclusion that there is no seer. The issue then is to bring the mind to rest, absolute stillness, well-controlled and restrained. Try emptying your mind of any thoughts, including thoughts about no- thought! That takes enormous effort and practice. Once we master the mind and it is subdued, and the ego is also dissolved (the endeavor of every religion - humbleness and humility are half way stations to the eventual dissolution of the ego) the consciousness is still and the background, the void, the subject emerges and is aware due to its own effulgence, without the filter of conditioned existence. That awareness of the seer, by the infinite power of its own light, is what I am calling `direct observation`. You see, our resort of the mind to explain this phenomenon causes us to call it an `observation`. These are all merely words.

Re: (b)

Let`s take your proposition and belief (yes, despite or rather due to your arguments, it is a belief) that consciouness emerges from matter. You would say, just as fragrance emerges from a flower, even though the individual ingredients (carbon, hyrogen, oxygen, atoms, molecules etc) that make up the flower do not have the fragrance, just as the `intoxicating quality` of wine arises from grape juice fermented with yeast, even though that quality is not present in the individual components, so too consciousness emerges when matter is mixed in the right proportions to form the human body. If consciouness is an essential property of the living human body, then it should be inseparable from it. But it is not. When one faints or goes into deep sleep, the living body is seen without consciousness. And on the other hand, in dreams, consciousness is seen without the living body. When a dreamer awakes, he disowns the dream-body, but owns the dream-consciousness. The dream objects are sublated in the waking life, but the dream-consciousness is not contradicted even in the waking life. When a person wakes up after seeing a tiger in a dream, he realizes that the tiger is unreal, being only a dream-tiger, but the fact that he saw a tiger in a dream remains a fact even in the waking life. This proves that consciousness persists through the three stages of waking life, dream life and deep sleep life, and is much superior to the material body, which is its instrument and not its cause. As I said before, the subject, the knower cannot be reduced to the object, the known, since all objects presuppose the existence of the subject. Hope this explains better.

Regards.

Godot (36)::

Somethings are mysterious, and others we would want to be mysterious :) Pointlessness or purposefulness, who knows, but at least ... ``dil kay behlanay ko Ghalib yeh khayyal acha hai!``.

regards
W

Re: Those participating in this debate

I believe I have come full circle to the question I posed to Wasiq about Weinberg`s pointlessness a while back.

The fundamental question to me, a man in search of himself, has been an age-old one. Who am I and what am I doing here? My observation is that the East has tried to answer that question intuitively, the West analytically; and while the West`s analytical reasoning has benefited the masses enormously in terms of making material life better, the East`s intuitiveness has benefited only a handful (the `initiated ones`, they say), and only spiritually.

I agree with SR that, given a million years or two, the ``intellect`` might be able to reconcile with the ``seer.`` Until then, I will rely on--hence, the full circle--Weinberg`s pointlessness.

Venki (34)::

``It would be a postulate only when there is no direct observation.``

Then it must be demonstrable. Considering me to be an amateur in this field, can you explain to me:

(a) What is this direct observation? Please give me a specific example(s).

(b) Why is one necessarily led to the conclusion that a simpler (material) explanation will not suffice?

best
W