Re: Science and philosophy-- my NYT note

[Navaratna Rajaram]

May 11, 2012

There is now a lively ongoing debate among scientists and philosophers over the state of the two fields, with Stephen Hawking proclaiming that "philosophy is dead". This may be true of Western philosophy whose basis is theology that is often at odds with metaphysics. There has been no major thought on this after A.N. Whitehead, and he stopped in 1924-- before Heisenberg and Schroedinger revolutionized physics.

This is not remotely true of Vedantic philosophy which has a strong metaphysical foundation in works like the Brahma-sutra (and commentaries by Madhva and Shankara), Tattva-Viveka and others. I have written about this over the past two years and also lectured extensively. I am currently working on a book also.

So Indian scientists and philosophers have a golden opportunity to make a significant contribution to the growth of philosophy. But this will require recasting Vedanta, especially its metaphysics to be in dialog with modern science especially quantum mechanics and its puzzles.

 

On the whole I am disappointed with the lack of participation being shown by Indian scholars. They seem to be living in the past thinking that there is nothing new. But philosophy also must change with time as science does. All new knowledge should impact philosophy. This is as true of Vedanta as theology. Otherwise it will end up in the dustbin of history.

But I am encouraged by the response I am getting to my presentations including this brief note. Again, we need an Indian Journal of History and Philosophy of Science to address these issues.

N.S. Rajaram

Note:

The idea of experiment as the final authority in science may have worked in classical physics, but not in quantum physics. As Werner Heisenberg put it, quantum mechanics allows us to explain the result of any experiment, not predict it except on the average and in probability.

There is a more fundamental problem-- the natural world is not the same as the world described by theories of physics. This is loosely referred to as the problem of reality. Heisenberg asserted that the "notion of objective reality evaporated into mathematics." According to Pascual Jordan, "We ourselves create the results of our experiments."

Philosophers have still not grasped the true nature of the ontological problem posed by quantum physics. Whitehead made a valiant effort in his Process as Reality, but fell short.

We must recognize that this is a metaphysical problem-- quantum physics has no ontology, while philosophy is carrying outmoded epistemology. This lies at the heart of the crisis-- unlike special relativity, which specifies inertial frames, there is no metaphysical description of the domain of quantum physics. What we have in its place are descriptions of mathematical operations and expected results.

Vedantic philosophers of medieval India also grappled with this problem of reality and perception. Acharya Madhva (1238 - 1317) asserted that reality is of two orders-- independent and dependent and both are real. Any experiment is part of the 'dependent' and not a full description (of the independent).

[Shrisha Rao]

El may 11, 2012, a las 7:32 p.m., Navaratna Rajaram escribió:

> Acharya Madhva (1238 - 1317) asserted that reality is of two orders-- independent and dependent and both are real.

That is quite misleading, to say the least; the actual statement is स्वतन्त्रमस्वतन्त्रं च द्विविधं तत्त्वमिष्यते; स्वतन्त्रो भगवान् विष्णुः भावाभावौ द्विधेतरत् -- the thesis that *reality* is of two types is a Buddhist tenet (द्वे सत्वे समुपाश्रित्य बुद्धानां धर्मदेशना, etc.) found in Advaita also, but is strongly denied by Madhva's doctrine: यादृशं ब्रह्मणो सत्यं तादृशं स्याज्जगत्यपि.

> Any experiment is part of the 'dependent' and not a full description (of the independent).

Madhva's thesis is not about the empirical world, and must not be interpreted that way.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Shrisha Rao]

El may 12, 2012, a las 4:56 a.m., Navaratna Rajaram escribió:

> We must adapt philosophical concepts to new circumstances that did not exist in his time. We cannot remain loyal to the time and tradition when both have changed.

Which, of course, begs the question of why the traditional precept should be even (mis)quoted, given that it is no longer considered relevant. It is more honest to simply posit whatever one wishes to, without attributing it to someone else with whom one disagrees.

> Also, I retain only the metaphysics and leave out the theology invoking Vishnu which has no relevance to physics. That is my choice.

Even so, it is inaccurate to attribute to Madhva the position that there are two types of reality, which he explicitly rejects in several places. His statement has nothing to do with types of reality (the adjective, meaning the property of being real), and instead has to do with types of entities, all equally real, these being independent and dependent. This classification also should have no relevance to physics since one of the categories, viz., the independent, is not the subject of it -- thus, everything in physics is classified as dependent only.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> N.S. Rajaram
>
> 2012/5/11 Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>

> --
> निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
> to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
> https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
>

[Navaratna Rajaram]

 

    We must adapt philosophical concepts to new circumstances that did not exist in his time. We cannot remain loyal to the time and tradition when both have changed.

 

    Also, I retain only the metaphysics and leave out the theology invoking Vishnu which has no relevance to physics. That is my choice.

 

N.S. Rajaram

2012/5/11 Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>

El may 11, 2012, a las 7:32 p.m., Navaratna Rajaram escribió: