Re: Madhudvisa and science
>(Madhudvisa dasa ) writes:
>>>>>>>> WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS DARK...
>>>Well, be honest then and say that you are using the idea of self-similarity in
>>>the allegorical (or poetic) sense and not in any scientific sense.
>> No. It's as scientific as any other application of the theory.
<< snip >>
>In your first post you try to use one scientific theory to discredit another.
>In it you say that Mandelbrot gives us "similarity on different scales" and
>others have proposed the big bang theory of creation and then you go on to say
>that if Mandelbrot's ideas are true then we should see creation on a smaller
>scale like the big bang. Then you tell us the limitations of science .
If I am going to talk to you I have to talk in terms you can relate to.
There is no reason whatsoever I [or anyone else for that matter] can't
use one scientific theory to disprove another. If Mandelbrot's ideas
are true we should see smaller creations on a smaller scale to the big
bang. This is a valid application of his ideas. It is as valid a
hypotheses as the big bang. Of course many millions of scientific
man-hours have been spent trying to find some observable evidence that
points to such an event occurring in the distant past and of course you
have found some things (red shifts.. I don't know of anything else but
I'm sure there's something...) If enough people look they are bound to
>It is ironical that you should see the limits of science *except* when you
>want to use it to argue your own point. You say it is valid to use
>Mandelbrot's ideas this way ... but you show no evidence that your
>extrapolation of the theory is valid. Your only justification is through
>flowery statements. That is why I described it as allegorical or poetic.
Science IS limited by your own definition. I have already read this
article and you say later on a _scientific_ theory is one which by
definition can be invalidated.. So by definition (according to you)
science can never present absolute knowledge.
My definition of science, real science, if you don't mind, is something
different. I would define real science as the process by which one
approaches the absolute truth. If you get upset about this definition
we might have to call my science "Absolute Science".
>Mandelbrot showed that if you looked at some (even many) things in nature,
>like a coastline or tree at *different scales* i.e. (close and afar) you could
>see a "similar disorder" to the pattern.
Yo can see similar "order". His patterns are not "disorderly" that's
the whole point. Before Mandelbrot it was not generally known that
apparent order could be generated from reiterating simple non-liner
equations. If the result of such an exercise was "similar disorder" no
body would have been interested... That's what we would expect. The
interesting thing about fractals is it seems there is "similar order"
at different scales...
> The same for clouds, economic
>fluctuations, etc. He (and others) showed the underlying descriptor were
>non-linear equations which cannot be solved analytically. Thus nature appears
>to generally behave in a non-linear way.
>That doesn't mean a coastline is the same or even similar to a tree or a cloud
>(and I doubt that Mandlebrot would say so).
Of course not. They are different systems with different equations. You
have missed the point. The similarity is between say the costline of
Australia and the "costline" of Botany Bay. Or the branching structure
of a tree trunk to the branching structure of the small twigs... You
can't compare clouds with coastlines or trees!
>The similarity is in the fact
>that their patterns appear to arise from non-linear behaviour (and as you say,
>may be fairly simple equations).
No that's _NOT_ the point. The interesting thing is in the same system
the same _ORDERLY_ patterns are repeated at different scales... There
are so many different non-liner equations you could use but each one
produces strikingly different results. The similarity is the repetition
of features and patterns on different scales...
>It doesn't say that if you see one object or
>one event that it will be reproduced all over the place on smaller
It says in the one system, [tree branching, costline, creation, etc],
the same patterns will be repeated on different scales... So it is a
reasonable application of his theory to say if the creation of the
universal body was caused by a "big bang" then we would see creations
of smaller bodys with "small bangs"... It also makes sense logically
that "creation" would happen in a consistent way throughout the whole
From our practical experience we see, of course, creation of small
universes [children, etc] doesn't happen with "small bangs". It results
from the combination of a mother and a father. So if the universe is a
body [which it undoubtedly is] how is it unreasonable to postulate that
it may have been created using the same process we see happening before
us every day? Would not that be a more reasonable hypothesis than
something completely foreign to us which cannot even be clearly
>Then you try and use them to say the Big Bang is invalid. That is what I
>find unreasonable! As I said, it shows that you have not appreciated what the
>theory says or (more importantly) what it doesn't say.
I'm presenting an alternative, that's all. Since when is it wrong to
consider alternatives? That's not reasonable.
I know what the Big Bang theory says... And I also know it doesn't say
>> How can they be "scientific" if they fail to consider spiritual
>> science? What is the reason they discount God from their theories? Why
>> can't I postulate a "scientific" theory which includes God? Who could
>> claim such a theory was invalid? Would it not be just as valid as
>> Darwin's theory or the big bang theory?
>By its very definition, a _scientific_ theory is one that can be invalidated
>(it is one of its limitations, but not an unreasonable one in trying to
Such a definition means science can _NEVER_ find the truth because the
truth is absolute and _BY_DEFINITION_ can never be invalidated. If this
is truly the basis of science I suggest science is worthless and we
should start a new body of thought based around the concept of
>You have to tell me how you can set up a scientific
>theory (which you can show is wrong) that includes God.
We can set up such a proof but it is absolute, it is not wrong! If your
science _BY_DEFINITION_ can not cope with absolute facts I think you
should start looking elsewhere... It's not a very good system.
Can you set up a scientific theory which proves water is wet (which you
can show is wrong)? You have said _BY_DEFINITION_ science can't do
this. I think you must be mistaken. If science can't accept or prove
the fact that water is wet you have chosen the wrong profession!
>What phenomena is
>proof that God is there and we can measure? You tell me how we frame a
>"scientific theory" that includes God that can be tested in a scientific way.
God is absolute and _BY_DEFINITION_ you have excluded absolute truths
from "science" (ie: water is wet). That is a flaw in science...
>Anybody can have a _theory_ that includes God. I can believe in Christ or
>Allah or Krishna etc. and go about my life in the belief that they are God
>and exist. I can believe that God created the universe last Tuesday. I can
>believe that God pushes the clouds around and creates tornadoes. I can
>believe that God makes all bumblebees fly by carrying them around.
>These are all theories, but they are not scientific.
We can frame many real scientific theories based on the absolute truth
which may or may not be verifiable by your "scientific" process. But
_BY_DEFINITION_ you will reject them all. Because, as with "water is
wet", you can't disprove it. This is a fault in science not in our
absolute scientific facts!
>>>However, let's be honest and treat all knowledge with respect. If you want
>>>use science then understand what it says first and THEN explain why the
>>>interpretation is incorrect. It is not that hard and metaphysical discussions
>>>are not that unusual. These arise whenever you discuss quantum mechanics.
>> The interpretation may not be incorrect in the "scientific" framework.
>> Science has little to do with reality.
>Science's main goal has always been to understand physical reality. To make a
>statement like your is close to insulting.
Surely there are absolutes in physical reality ("water is wet") but, by
your definition, science cannot handle such realities. By your
definition science indeed has little to do with reality...
>> It's about creating models based
>> on some underlying hypotheses which explain what we see around us. It
>> doesn't say they are correct. They have started with the hypothesis
>> that everything can be explained in terms of matter only this is the
>> foundation of "science" as we know it.
>Of course there are some founding principles.
If you cant disprove it it's not science??? What a strange principle...
> eg. there exists a physical
No It doesn't handle "reality" at all. If something is a "physical
reality" how can you disprove it (water is wet). Therefore "physical
realities" have to be excluded from science (by your definition... I
hope your definition is wrong...)
>It is regular and consistent. etc. If you didn't start with that you
>would not start at all. The only reason that it has dealt with reality "in
>terms of matter" is that there is very little evidence of anything else.
NONSENSE. You have NEVER been able to show life, consciousness is a
product of matter. The spiritual energy is present right in front of
your eyes everywhere you look. Everything that is conscious exhibits
properties that you HAVE NEVER SHOWN TO BE PROPERTIES OF MATTER.
Life comes from life. LIFE DOES NOT COME FROM MATTER NOR IS MATTER
You have closed your eyes, that is all.
>Galileo dropped his balls he didn't find one flying off into the sunset or
>turning into a quiche. Thus he didn't need to consider anything else.
What if he dropped a partridge and a ball? How could he explain the
partridge flying away and the ball dropping to the ground? What is the
difference between the partridge and the ball? Why does the ball obey
the laws of gravity but the partridge does not. By your definition they
are both matter... THE DIFFERENCE IS LIFE, consciousness, spirit.
Surely this is a scientific experiment proving the existence of
something other than matter?
>> They have "faith" that
>> everything can be explained within the framework of measurable material
>No they don't. It is simply that the evidence that anything else is important
>(for describing nature) is very slim.
Of course they do... Otherwise they wouldn't go to such ridiculous ends
to try and prove it does...
>eg. psychic powers like telepathy. I reckon alot of people would like to
>believe that this exists.
Mostly they want to cheat people with them..
>But tests have been pretty negative up to now.
>What this shows is
Most of them ARE con-men!
> (1) it doesn't exist or (2) it is unreliable. Until
>someone comes up with conclusive evidence that they exist, should we really
>work under the assumption that they do?
>Your life could not be shown to be different.
No my life is clearly different from matter. If I die now the matter in
my body, the things which your science can observe remain exactly the
same. But _MY_LIFE_ is gone. My life, is clearly shown to be something
completely different from _MY_BODY_ at the time of death... Why can't
you see this?
>>>> Somebody told me [in another group]:
>>>>>Einstien said, "science is like looking at a face of a watch and trying
>>>>>to figure out how it works inside." When we have theorys on how nature
>>>>>works, sometimes we will prove it wrong, sometimes we can never prove it
>>>>>wrong, because it is right. Re: The moon and the sun theory/fact!
>>>> Exactly, it's a great statement. You can take a number of watches which
>>>> all display the correct time but inside the watches the mechanics could
>>>> be completely different. Externally they are identical. The same thing
>>>> holds with the universe. You can develop many different models (like
>>>> the workings of the different watches) which give the same result as we
>>>> see in the sky (like all the watches display the same time). Just as
>>>> you can't determine what the mechanism is inside the watch by looking
>>>> at it, you can't tell the "mechanism" of the universe by looking
>>>> through your telescope.
>Maybe you can't and maybe you can. We certainly can tell alot about the
Yes. You've missed the point. It tells you _ABSOLUTELY_NOTHING_ about
the mechanism inside the case. It could be mechanical, it might be
electronic, perhaps it uses a quarts crystal.
You can study the watchface in great detail, of course. You can
determine if it's covered by glass or plastic, whether there is
phosperesent dots on it or not and you can speculate as to their
>and use that to our benefit. We certainly would hope that gives us
>insights to what lies behind (if anything).
Of course you assume there is nothing behind the watchface, that the
hands just move "all by themselves".... And that the wach was formed as
a result of a big bang which came from nowhere, was caused by noone and
somehow magically (with a little help from negative inertia!) formed
the watchface. Sounds reasonable?
>> "Yet there is another nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to
>> this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never
>> annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains
>> as it is." (Bhagavad-gita 8.20)
>The important point is the assumption that something lies behind. Why should
>we assume this if it doesn't manifest itself?
It's not an assumption, it's the absolute truth. What is beyond this
universe is _COMPLETLY_ beyond our power to see. We have to find an
authority for this information. The best authority is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead Krishna and He has very nicely given us the
above statement of _ABSOLUTE_SCIENTIFIC_FACT_... You can't disprove it
>>>Science doesn't (and probably cannot) deal with things outside of the
>>>physical. I am open to this limitation. What it does tell us though, is how
>>>much we can put down to the physical. This can only help all of us understand
>>>anything else that *might* be left over (if anything).
>> The difficulty is if the underlying assumption is "everything can be
>> explained by physical things" one then ignores things which cannot be
>> explained in such a way. He pretends they don't exist. If you get
>> enough people together who incorporate this assumption into their world
>> view then when someone talks about the spiritual existence it can be a
>> little difficult...
>Science uses this assumption simply because the world appears to operate this
NONSENSE. The world appears to function under the direction of living
entities. You have not shown what life is! You fail to recognize
consciousness and life... But it is consciousness and life that is
doing everything around us. You can put as many chemicals in your
laboratory as you like but unless you, a conscious living entity, mix
>Show us that it doesn't e.g. do something totally outside the laws of
>physics, and I am sure that there will be a lot of scientists wanting to talk
No they don't want to hear such things... I am doing something
completely outside the laws of physics now. I am thinking and composing
this reply to your nonsense... How can you explain that in terms of
>> However if someone comes up with a very shaky
>> theory that supports their "world-view" [big bang, Darwin] they are
>> very enthusiastic to accept it "warts and all".
>Tsk. Tsk. Your prejudice is showing again.
>The only reason that you find
>them "shaky" is (probably) because you have never really understood them.
Show me someone who does!
>you really want to know, then I am willing to try my best but I want to know
>that you are willing to learn.
I don't think you know either [with all due respects]. I would prefer
to learn from someone who can accept that "water is wet"...
>>>> So you can't actually tell what's going on out there. How absolutely
>>>> ridiculous it is that you think you can understand how the universe was
>>>> created billions of years ago. I don't know if you read about Dr. Frog
>>>> but his story is very relevant
>What makes your own way of searching better?
We don't have to search. Krishna comes here and speaks the absolute
truth, we believe Him. After all He is the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. It's a very simple and perfect scientific process.
>Mankind has been doing your kind
>of searching for truth since time immemmorial
Because that's what mankind is for! We are supposed to question: "Who
am I?", "What's the purpose of life?" You would answer this one very
simply: "You don't exist - you are simply a combination of chemicals"
but such an explanation cannot be accepted by any thoughtful man.
>and resulted in thousands of
>religions, beliefs, gods, faiths etc. Obviously they are not all right.
They are all on the right path, they are all asking the right
questions, they will all get there in the end. But science????
>Modern science has been around for a very short time, but nearly all
>without exception agree on what is "good science" and what is "bad" and
>what still has to be worked out. Its track record is pretty good.
It has _NO_ track record and it has destroyed human civilization. It
has turned humans into something less than animals by convincing them
there is no purpose to life save and except enjoying now. It will not
be around for very much longer...
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!