Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Why the 'ultimate reality' may not be a 'structural theory' of universe?

Why emotional predilection of an object or a system is the most real, and supposedly the 'essence' of every object ?

 Our age is obsessed with physical nature of the absolute reality, that if there is an absolute reality about life and existence, it would be in the form of a physical, mathematical or chemical equation. What science expect is that by discovering a unified theory of all our known form of energies, such an equation will be in place, and we would be able to solve the ultimate question of how world had originated. Answering such an ultimate question would lead to answering all further questions such as why life, and what is the ultimate meaning and destiny of mankind as well as the universe.

But it might be helpful if science realize that every known end-product in the objective world (every life and inorganic form or object) appears to have been made to fulfill certain purpose, or it exists as a means to some end. Every system is a 'structure' at the overt level, altogether a different entity from its molecular composition.

Getting to know them meticulously at the component level of the structure will not help us in understanding its essence, as both systems function under separate laws
.  But if we know the 'essence' of the system beforehand, it might become very easy to relate such essence or purpose to each component, and get to know the system completely. An example is our car getting into the hands of a curious alien team from another galaxy. They may analyze each component of the car at metallurgical and chemical level, but till they realize it as a means of fast travel on the surface of earth by the earthlings, the alien team will not make any sense of the object before them. This is the very reason why man is not able to make any sense out of the mad-dance of the assorted particles at the subatomic particle world. We have not laid our hands on the essence of life and existence, hence our structural or component level knowledge does not end the deadlock.

We can not refute that the end purpose of such mad, apparently unrelated and chaotic dance of the sub-atomic particles is 'life' in its given sense. It was naive for mankind to devalue the end-stuff, and gone after the structural building block of the whole. Like the mystery of the building block of matter, the metaphysical aspect of the evolving of life and momentum in universe in the form of life, also was to be taken up by science with equal vigor. Origin of consciousness and intelligence also deserved an equal or more serious attention of science, as it was from this development that science was able to have 'entities' (we,humans)  who sought to probe the secrets of matter as well as life.

Why the emotional predilection, or property (predisposition) of any entity is more profound and fundamental than knowledge about its structural aspect could be ascertained from the following example: A father, and his many children: let us take the father as an entity, or the object that  his children attempt to study and describe.For each son or daughter, his/her father would be a different person, as every relation is a unique two-way  phenomenon.For each partner in the relation, the other person is uniquely different, means, no one else would be knowing him exactly the same fashion.

As a structural entity, or as a collective entity in the family and society, the father might have a common statistical, or objective image, but it is his general predilection, or predisposition that could be called as the real he in every sense. While his photo or real physical features will never make his real person in comparison with his general predilection and predisposition, in every sense and meaning, what he really is, is the latter dimension of him.

It would be totally senseless to proclaim that he was his physical properties and features. It may serve  special collective purposes such as for statistical data etc., but such a reality of him for the collective world has no relevance to his reality as a person, in metaphysical sense. .
What explained above was the real nature of the account of science about its realities. They are only accounts based on the external study of the physical properties of the objects and events; NOT anything close to actual REALITY. Such reality should exclusively comprises the predilection or predisposition of the object or entity of the whole universe. Such predilection or predisposition will always be an 'emotional' substance in every case. When science claims that existence is cold and mathematical, it is equal to attributing a certain predilection. So, in a way, the question of ultimate reality is not about its final equation, but about the nature of its ultimate predisposition. It is about whether life and existence is purposeless and senseless, or does it have certain 'sense', purpose and meaning.

As science as a whole is a collective, impersonal body, it can never have subjective experiences, as once mentioned above, hence, it could never access reality of the whole in its predilection sense. It could only consolidate various accounts of the physical or structural properties, which has nothing do with REALITY even in remote sense.

As Stephen Hawking said in his " Brief History of Time, (p.12) " If everything in the universe depends on everything else in a fundamental way, it might be impossible to get close to a full solution by investigating parts of the problem in isolation"

The predilection of the object or entity is the final and absolute cause, that would be capable of explaining every sub-event, and every sub-structural system. A reverse process, that is, explaining the substance by describing the structure of isolated systems and objects would be always futile, naive and impossible.

The metaphysical properties of existence are conspicuously two: its ‘corpulence’ and ‘tiny-ness’ at the same time. While the essence is a tiny dot, its structure is clumsy and corpulent. As emotional content, the essence of whatever that exists, could be sensed by mind at one go, as it is a tiny mind-thing. It is similar to the reality of the father in the minds of the children in the above example. The net essence of their father is an emotional connect in the children's mind, a tiny connect. Probably the ultimate reality behind life and existence could also be such a predilection connect, instead of its' being a grand theory around its structural corpulence.

This organization can be further grasped by the way of another example. A rabbit, when science wants to study it as an object, it kills and dissects it in the lab, organ by organ and cell by cell. When its complete anatomy is ready in a graphic fashion, medical science gain complete knowledge about the object.

But if it (science) had decided to keep the animal alive, feeding and nurturing it, it would have produced many baby rabbits and filled the lab with life and momentum, thus leading to another equally valid reality about the object ! Such a step is opposite to dividing the object to sub-components and system. It is accepting the 'end system' as the final reality of the object. While modern science goes after the building block of matter, it is at the cost of ignoring, or sidelining the mysterious proton-neutron unity inside the atom (the nuclei) that gives stability, shape and form to the world, and its organic and inorganic contents.

The above are always the two options before seekers of reality; whether to have structural knowledge about the object of study, or the more wholesome and holistic knowledge about the object, adopting different approach and paradigm. Today's science is centered around the former method, leaving the other option to different field of studies, where the required degree of accuracy, and predictive ability is vague, hence their social acceptability is also far less.

Now a section of scientists claim that they only follow a scientific method to study the object in front of them. They never keep any final opinion on the nature of ultimate reality. Is this argument equal to the argument of a butcher who kills animals daily and that of a state executioner who hangs convicts often. Both parties can claim they only are engaged in a profession that gets them their daily bread? They have nothing to do with the morality of the work they do? 

We better keep in mind that unlike the butcher and the state executioner, scientists are a different sect of people in society. They represent a particular life-view, that followed by millions of their followers. They can't escape the ultimate life-view kept by the Science, that, the ultimate reality is after all, PHYSICAL. There is nothing beyond physical in existence. Here we attempted to throw light on the fallacious view kept by certain section of scientists, that in their profession, they simply follow a 'method'. Scientists can't be compared with butchers and state-executioners. 

Authored by: Abraham J.Palakudy

He is a researcher and seeker into subjects like Mind &Reason, Metaphysics, Spirituality,and lastly into polity and democracy 

His Twitter a/c: Voice of Philosophy@jopan1

His brief profile and other blog-posts: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

No comments:

Post a Comment