The Dicey Problem of New Age Science: Einstein, Hawking and God at the Casino

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

Order flows from consistent laws. Our understanding of our universe is changing, but Reality behind it is unchanged. Einstein's relativity amended Newtonian determinism, and was in turn amended by quantum mechanics. Einstein saw a harmonious advance in knowledge, and said, 'God does not play dice'; but Stephen Hawking later saw a radical departure, and said, 'God is a gambler.!

This author, a keen student of philosophy with a moderate background of science, sees in these conflicting conclusions the inevitable distortion when 'the relative' is projected on to 'the Absolute'. Therefore he says, 'Do not worry about God. He is not a visiting player like you and me, but the absolute owner of the casino. When He plays, His left hand picks up what His right hand loses. His status remains unaltered. We had better be looking out for ourselves. The serious point made is that the Absolute includes and exceeds the time-space-causation frame of relativity, and these parameters cannot cross the border.

The limitations must be clearly understood.

'Time' of physics is enought to study kinetic processes but not to locate-the creative potential. That requires 'time' of our, conscious awareness. But bio-science mistakes consciousness to be a product of brain-cells. In truth, consciousness is the energy, and brain is the equipment through which it manifests.

Thus TIME is the Achilles' heel of physics, and MIND is the Achilles' heel of biology. The name of Reality is Total Consciousness. It is eternal. Death was never born, and life never died.

He was already thirty-five when a tragic event raised haunting questions about creation and creator, about order or chance decreeing birth and death, and about ultimate meanings and methods in all our lives. Could there be in creation an overall unfolding cosmic purpose? Perhaps not, said his rational mind. But that answer would have to be the final conclusion of diligent enquiry, it would not be the first dogma of furious frustration.

A' 48 batch post-graduate in Science from Louisiana State University (USA), he joined his father in starting a modest food processing unit, which he built up gradually into the largest in India in that industry. Prosperity, prestige and recognition became the outer facade of success. The inner urge to seek and resolve his rightful place in creation remained the focus of his life.

With no traditional training or exposure to philosophy till then, he listened, studied, contemplated, and alertly remained concerned. Openness and earnestness were his only assets, but they were enough to gain step after step an unravelling of the answers with objective clarity and linked logic.

However, objective knowledge is a science learnt, not a science lived. One learns physics, biology, economics, history and the knowledge serves utilitarian purposes. But knowledge of oneself, the deeper significance of "know thyself", has to be subjective. It is not to serve a need, but to place one beyond need. What could be more challenging, or rewarding?

Dwaraknath Reddy stays and strives on that path. When he came across the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, unfolding the nuances of Self-Enquiry, focussed on the core question "WHO AM I?", he was flooded with an inner conviction that Ramana Maharshi was the epitome of all scriptures and their promise to humanity of attainable perfection. Therefore, for strength and comfort in his chosen pursuit, Reddy lives in the sanctified sanctuary of Sri Ramanashramam, Tiruvannamalai, S. India (TN 606 603). While walking towards a cherished destination, every step is pure delight. He remains a seeker.

When a reprint of this book was being considered, I came across "Quantum Questions" by Ken Wilber, in which, through personal comment and compilation, he has created a volume that for me was deeply and delightfully relevant. My book had been written addressing the physicist and the bio-scientist, with acceptance of and admiration for their analyses and insights into cosmic energies and molecular evolution, while simultaneously stating for their consideration, or reconsideration, that, within the disciplines of their linked and linear rationale, the reference to the First Factor, or Creator, or Beginning, or the Thing-in-itself, or the Unified Field, or the Theory-of-Everything, could not even be adequately formulated - how then could it be answered? Wrong questions elicit wrong answers.

So it was refreshing that Ken Wilber put scientific conclusions in right perspective, and brought to our ears and minds a chorus of voices, his own included, of brilliant men of science, who never claimed to be saying the last word but said distinctly that quantum physics did not reduce or blur - how then, eliminate? - the division between the subjective and the objective. To think so involved a misuse of language. An honest assertion. And the perfect jumping. board to dive into the very words "subjective and objective," till we can set apart the subject from the object, the perceiver from the perceived, the knower from the known.

I found myself in debt to Ken Wilber for his summary of Eddington's precise analysis that "the exploration of the external world by the method of physical science leads not to a concrete reality, but to a shadow world of symbols. To penetrate beyond, we return to human consciousness...."

The core purpose of my writing has been to lay relentless stress on "consciousness". If this is a factor in the processes of matter-by which we mean, if consciousness is a product of neural chemistry then it too is one of the symbols that science is already familiar with. There can be no penetrating beyond.

If in saying that we place upon ourselves a self-imposed limitation, we defeat and frustrate ourselves. The solution lies in re-examining the potency of our tools, which are words (symbols). Let us find the words to understand the word "word", for without words there is no mentation. Then let us see what opens up.

Let us not take comfort in soothing phrases. If "science is blind without religion, and religion is lame without science," creeping about individually both will fall into pits individually. If they team- up piggy-back and march together, both will still fall into the pit of limitation together. Take your choice.

Ken Wilber's precise, pertinent, and probing questions pushed me deeper into my contemplations. As a result, I felt motivated and empowered. The clarity of his questions invoked clarity of mental response in my search. Gratefully and joyously I have added a few chapters to the first edition and feel a deeper sense of fulfilment.