>In article <3svl2n$lt@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, >Madhudvisa dasa <madhudvisa@krishna.org> wrote: >> >>There are many models which can be used to describe what we see around us >>in the universe. Science is the process of developing and verifying these >>models... >Most models are NOT even remotely scientific, however. >> >>But the models are in the scientist's brains... They are not in the >>universe. >> >Excuse me... Sir... Excuse' mua... >Just one question, >where exactly are the brains&models of scientists if they >are not in the Universe? Yes. Very nice! I will have to accept that... > And if the brain creates models of the Universe >in which it resides (the defualt condition), then...ergo am I? Here I do not understand your point. >>How will you ever know which model is correct? Perhaps the universe is >>completely different from ALL of your models. >> >I like the way you state "All of *YOUR* models". >Or more likely, the Universe is very nearly exactly like we objectively >perceive "Her" to be like. And the universe could be quite different as well. We have a very limited view of a very big universe. A frog living at the bottom of a three-foot wide well also has his perception of the universe. He's developed his models to explain why the hole at the top of his well is sometimes blue, sometimes, white, sometimes dark... He thinks he understands the universe... But what can he see? > "Correct" in what sense? Science is not a >religious "Absolute Dogmatic Truth". Sure, at least not to me. As Leon >Lederman says, if Science were actually a Religion, then all those that >complain about "Her" would immediately start chanting the mantra and >billions of dollar$ would be generated for the CAUSE of Science. >>Science can tell us very little about reality. Because reality is absolute >>but science doesn't deal in absolutes... >> >You are using a very obtuse definition of "absolute". What exactly is >the "reality" that science tells us so little about? Any "reality" even physical like the workings of the universe can only be modeled by science. If the model predicts the operation of the system that is good science. But scientists don't claim it actually describes the system. It models the system... >BTW, I think this post was bait and I just bit. But it's done now. >> >>Thank you. Hare Krishna! >> >Also, I already chant the chant. Sounds good, etc. but it doesn't do a >thing for me personally. Your experience obviously varies. ;-) Keep chanting!!! "By chanting the holy name of the Supreme Lord,, one comes to the stage of love of Godhead. Then the devotee is fixed in a vow as an eternal servant of the Lord, and he gradually becomes very much attached to a particular name and form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As his heart melts with ecstatic love, he laughs very loudly and cries and shouts. Sometimes he sings and dances like a madman, for he is indifferent to public opinion." (Sri Havi to King Nimi in Srimad Bhagavatam 11.2.40) Thank you. Hare Krishna! Madhudvisa dasa (madhudvisa@krishna.org) /sudarsana All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!
Sudarsana
Home madhudvisa@krishna.org