Ancient science: Understanding transformation

This is the 5th blog of the series Exploring science in ancient science. I had devoted the previous blogs of this series to describe the difference in view of space and time and existence in ancient science. The system that is described, is a changing base network, which contains various observables having multiple paths which is existence. These paths move forward based on self-established logic. Work is performed to move forward in the network. This is purely a systematic view of the whole. The missing piece here is the role of an observer, that is the “I”. What is the role of “I” in such a system? As I have explained in the book Surya Siddanta: Emergence of empirical reality, we cannot study matter and its related concepts by itself without accounting for consciousness and awareness and assume that two concepts evolved coincidentally together. Scientific methodology needs to take into account “thought” and “change” in each and every scientific study, because they are integrated concepts and not something independent that can be slapped on later, once the concepts of matter are sorted out.

Modern science ignores this completely. In modern science, when we define space, time, matter, work done, energy and so on, we describe them without accounting for the “I” that is observing these concepts. This works because every concept described by modern science is within the same referential realm namely the “current reality as seen by I” and the concepts are made use of within the same referential realm. So, for example instead of describing space as: “given the current reality around me, space is a placeholder to indicate a position of an object in this reality”, we have just defined it as: “space is a placeholder to indicate a position of an object”. We have ignored the referential realm of “the current reality around me”, because it is common for all concepts we are describing. This definitely does not cause problems if we do not cross the realm of this “current reality around me”. But, when we want to understand the “current reality” around us, this becomes very critical.

It can be argued that experiments are conducted independent of the “I”, hence the concept is clearly not dependent on the description. What we need to ask ourselves here is “Who is envisioning the experiment? Who is conducting the experiment? Who is defining how to observe the result? and who is observing the results?”. It is the same “I”. Hence the error starts to exist even before the experiment has started. All the way from the “proposing a concept”, “envisioning the experiment that will prove a concept” to “measuring and observing the result to prove the concept”, the “I” has played a major role. Hence the referential realm has seeped into each and everything from the very beginning of scientific study. The question is “how much of the experiment anymore is imagination and how much of it is truth?” The more crucial question is “how much of the concept described is real anymore?”, because the concept also has been envisioned by the same “I”.

There is a difference though. For example, let’s take gravity. Without conducting any specific experiment or wanting to explain it, gravity is present. So, the concept itself cannot be an imagination. The difference starts to creep in when we describe it i.e., name it “gravity” and give it a description. Given that we experience it, we inadvertently describe it using ourselves as reference. Thus, rather than it being just a type a bond present in the network of the whole system, we start describing with describing it as an attraction between us and other objects. Based on this, we abstract it as a concept of attraction between different pieces of matter. Given that we are existent in the realm of space, this then gets related to space, from there to time and so the imagination starts. Thus, we have now got ourselves into a situation where we have no clue as to which part of our science is illusion and which part is the distorted description of the actual truth because of the logic of existence. The brain has started going via its own logic and stringing together conclusions to actuals. Thus modern science has now become a mish-mash of truth and fiction.

It is important to understand that “description or ucyate (in Sanskrit)” is a technique that this “I” uses to understand the environment around itself. So, when the “I” describes using words, it is just describing this understanding to communicate to others. It should be remembered that the “description” is one rendering of the concept. The concept itself need not necessarily equate to the rendering of the concept. We need to compensate for this understanding to know the concept. That is we need to isolate the self from that rendering to be able to know the underlying concept. For example: when “some underlying truth”, “appears” to us as “space”, that “some underlying truth which appears” has to be studied and investigated, not just “the appearance”. When we study “space” or “matter”, we are just studying the “appearance” and not the “underlying something that appears to us as space or matter”. Thus, the questions that need to be asked by science are: “what appears to me as space?” or “what appears to me as matter?” and so on., rather than “what is space?” or “what is matter?” etc.

This is the single most important difference between ancient science and modern science, according to me, that has led to huge differences in scientific understanding. Ancient science accounts for this appearance and this is called transformation. According to ancient science it is not just a single transformation but multiple levels of transformation before the truth becomes this reality around us. The final rendering of that underlying something is a “description” or “understanding”.

If we now look back at the view of space and time, where we saw the various particles i.e., atoms/molecules/light and so on connected together into a network by some set of forces, whether it is cohesive, adhesive, molecular, gravity and so on, moving at various paces forward, we have to start asking ourselves “how much of that network or nodes or forces are an appearance to me because of transformation that has been applied by me as an observer and how much of it is the actual truth?” According to ancient science, everything that we see are just transformations. So, the question arises, “what is that underlying truth then?” This according to ancient science is “thought”. Everything starts out with core or root thoughts, which appear as and subsequently rendered as this reality around us. So, what is the thought? This for another blog.

One Comment on “Ancient science: Understanding transformation

  1. Pingback: Exploring science in ancient scriptures – Thoughts on Ancient Philosophy

%d bloggers like this: