Why we should not be eager to be a space faring species

As I have written previously, I find, we, as humans, when we create technology using the external matter around us, we have successfully ended up creating garbage. Does not matter how long an item lasts and what it was used for. It is still a perishable. It can be a Sony TV that conked out within 5 years or a BPL TV that lasted for more than a decade or a smart phone which I seem to have to change every other year and some others every 6 months or a laptop which I need to upgrade every year or a car that lasts a decade. All of them ended up as garbage or in the recycle bin to be recycled generating a whole lot of unnecessary resultant garbage. Sadly, I find even the most simplest action of buying milk causes generation of garbage in the form of the plastic covers in which it is distributed. If not technology, we seem to spar on science, which as I have written in “Debatable theories of modern science” in my book “Surya Siddanta: Emergence of empirical reality” are truly just not sufficient to understand the underlying truth. They are at best similar to user manuals which describe how something is used and not a developer manual that shows how to extend that same something. We as a species seem to be more interested in competition, arguing about who can propose a scientific theory and prove it faster and patent it or who can take the scientific theory and convert it into a technology faster. Yet all that we end up with is creating more garbage. Many a time we find that the competition is more important than the science or technology itself. If someone wants to claim they are more technologically advanced than me or they have more scientific knowledge than me, then, I truly have only this to say: “Fine accepted. You are much much more advanced than me, now what?” The point is the “Now what”. We do not know how we can tie all these up into understanding the one thing that we still cannot even begin to understand. The underlying truth around us which has created this reality around us! So, does it really matter whether we travel outside earth or we are still confined inside earth from the perspective of distance and direction? We are only tied to that observable parameters that we can observe using our internal sense organs or external tools of observation.

What intrigues me the most is that I find the “technological backward” ancient people seem to have seen these stars, comets, planets, sun and so on and seem to have learnt a lot about the truth of the reality around them and have written such an in-depth literature such as Surya Siddanta which as I have explained is a science about how the empirical reality emerges. While we look at these same stars and planets and want to conquer it by travelling to it and observing the same or similar matter that we find here on earth and want to analyse the material properties of them? We need to start understanding that not everything can be learnt or proved by physical experimenting and physics and what we call science is not the whole and all of this infinite reality around us. I find that many things already have a proof and are present in reality around us. We are just loathe to accept such a simple answer as a proof! As I have explained before, we already model reality around us in our brains, so why not use that model rather than trying to express a jaded version of that model, in an externally describable language? We seem to be obsessed with trying to express everything in some external language! Language always is a barrier to knowing!

But, all these aside, more important than all these evident factors, is an understanding of how it will impact our own ability to learn, understand and know. You are surprised! You think that it should in-fact increase our knowledge if we are able to go outside earth? Well, let me explain why it will not. The reason resides directly in what reality really is. As I have written in many of my blogs, this reality is just an appearance of the truth that is what exists and that truth appears to me as something because I have seamlessly analysed and given to my conscious mind the conclusion. We all live in that conclusion by some analytical engine that is present in us, which forms an image or a speech or a sense of touch, judgements, emotions, thoughts and many many such things. It is very difficult for us to separate out these analytical conclusions from the original raw data and see the raw data that formed that conclusion. For example, I see “a mango tree” rather than the reflected light that formed the image in my retina, got translated to electrical signals and formed the image in my brain. I do not even see the cells that have connected together to form the mango tree. I only see and refer to it as a mango tree which is a one point conclusion from a set of various parameters that have been combined together to give me this result back. So, when this is the case, how can I even try to find the truth with this thoughts and this brain, which are all the tools I am equipped with? One of the various ways of doing this is by finding those cracks in the facade of the analytical engine that is present in all of us and using those cracks to piece together the algorithm of the analytical engine that forms us. This then should help us extend the algorithm of the analytical engine to give other outputs. So, what are these cracks in the facade?

As I have said in the book Surya Siddanta: Emergence of the empirical reality, there is a variance of observed parameters as the distance of the observable increases w.r.t us. The farther the observable, the lesser the amount of perceived information about it. Thus, for such far away observables, what is given back to our conscious mind should be the raw data, because there is not enough information present to analyse. Typically we find that we only analyse in-depth that which impacts our immediate being rather than everything. Thus, when we look outside earth into space and observe various parameters related to these stars, planets etc we can be fairly sure that what we are getting back has not got processed by the analytical engine and even if it has processed it, the amount of processing is the bare-minimum required for the brain to recognise the information. So, we should be able to use these input parameters to form a fairly close reconstruction of the algorithm of the analytical engine to help us reverse engineer it and apply it in the reverse to understand more about the observables that have given us a one point conclusion.

But, if we travel to these far away stars and planets and start collecting the various parameters about them, then we have bought into the conscious collective self (read what is common sense for why it is a collective self) the same observable parameters that formed the analysis for the observables nearer us, because we do not have any different tools other than what is already present to observe. Thus, effectively we have blocked the original advantage that was present, of not having enough information which allowed us to explore the working of the analytical engine to understand the algorithm. We have now forced the analytical engine to draw conclusions based on just the same limited parameters of observations that we have in the earth around us. When such is the case, truly, the conclusions can be nothing more than what is already present for the various materials present on earth. Sure, we can vary the number of electrons, protons and various particles present and we can study them to death. But, that is all we can still conclude! So, No Sir. I would prefer to have obscurity in parameters to give “my being” the ability to be able to explore and perceive other parameters other than what is already present in the material world around me! I would prefer the obscurity of the parameters to prevent my analytical engine from working the standard course, so I can explore the lower layers of raw data and intermediate conclusions that formed these final conclusion! So, yes, I think we should think hard as to what we gain by becoming space faring and what we are giving up before we do the action.

I will expand the various ways in which these obscurity can be used to understand reality around us in the next blog.

One Comment on “Why we should not be eager to be a space faring species

  1. Pingback: How obscurity of astronomy can help understand concepts | Research of Ancient Philosophy

%d bloggers like this: