As we saw in the previous chapter, the scientific methodology is either inadequate or has a number of holes that prevent us from advancing further in understanding the origin and working of reality around us.
Primarily we find that we have failed to account for “the observer” and “the observation” in our scientific enquiry. Thus we need to include the role of “thought” and “change” in the various physical, chemical, mathematical and in other areas of scientific enquiries to move forward.
Why do we need to consider thought in scientific enquiries? When we look at our definitions of basic concepts such as matter, inertia and so on that I had enumerated previously, we find that we need to have an inherent knowledge of the concept and all we do is associated a “name or reference” to the already understood concept, so that we can communicate with a common term. It is more a terminology of communication that is taught rather than the concept itself. The thought itself is not created till the word association is formed. The question we need to ponder is, “How is it that each and every one of us have the same inherent understanding for these concepts?” “How is it that the underlying thought that is formed when we say colour or matter is the same for all living beings?” But, isn’t that underlying thought that is formed, the reason for the existence of “colour” or “matter” or “inertia” or any other concepts we give a name to?
For example, let us say we want to define colour. We understand that light impinges on the cones in the retina. The frequency of vibrations due to the light that impinges, traverse the nerve to the brain which then forms the thought of colour (This is called “vag” in Sanskrit which is wrongly translated as speech, but is basically a “descriptive thought”). We then associate those descriptive thoughts formed to various words such as red, blue, green and so on to be able to communicate with others. So, what is colour? Is it the frequency of light impinging the nerves “colour” or the “descriptive thought that formed when the light impinged the eye the colour”? Aren’t the two distinctly different? The descriptive thought formed is the concept and the frequency of light just the rendering of that concept which can invoke the concept in us. So, should we study the concept or the rendering of the concept? Wouldn’t the rendering of the concept just be a single rendering of that abstract concept?
We tend to classify thought as a concept that is associated with only intelligence. But, is it so? How do we account for the similarities in behaviour of various classes of living beings? Why do all dogs recognise fear and react in a similar fashion? Why do all living beings recognise hunger and find a way to satisfy that hunger? Why do most living beings learn to move? If evolution is the answer to it all, then how did evolution not create varieties in hunger, motion, fear and other such thoughts? What is that aspect in all living beings that help recognise say fear or hunger? The only answer to that question is that they are all just “different forms of thought”.
Then, isn’t it necessary for us to include that “thought of the concept” into our scientific enquiry and study how that “descriptive thought” formed, rather than delve deeper into the “rendering of the concept”? Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if we study a specific rendering of a concept such as matter, we just form more rendering thoughts around that descriptive thought of matter rather than study that underlying concept we are just studying that rendering that triggered matter? To understand what matter is really, should we not be studying the concept thought formed in us when we sense matter?
As we reason further and further, it becomes clear that thought cannot just be considered as an external ability by the brain to recognise something in reality, but has to be a more intrinsic construct that forms the reason for the existence of the concept itself. Scientific methodology that excludes thought as one of the intrinsic constructs that accounts for the existence of physical and chemical properties of reality around us is incomplete. It only leads us to study the user perspective detailing how the concept can be used and not the intrinsic details of the concept themselves which explains why and how the concept manifests into reality.
There is a saying called “Out of sight out of mind”. But, we continuously perceive matter, light and other elements of reality around us. So, either all things in reality around us are also continuously moving along with us on the axis of time or we should have stopped detecting them and hence forgotten them. How can this stability of reality around us be got without such coherent continuous movement forward?
For example, when we look at non-sentient nature around us such as the elements of the landscape such as mountains, mud, sand, stones, air, water, ocean, rivers, stars, sun, planets and so on they continuously exist across time axis. They need to “exist imperishably” and slowly either degrade or change over from one form to another. They do not vanish suddenly.
If they are not related in some form to “our existence”, then how do they flow continuously along with us so that we can sense them continuously? Yet, when we scientifically talk about these as just matter with atoms, atoms containing electrons, protons and neutrons, they in turn made of many quantum elements such as photons, muons and so on., we do not account for how these exists continuously across time frames that we exist in?
In the standard scientific methodology, study across time exists only for anything connected with motion or action in space. So, distance travelled in space is computed with the time component. But, should the effect of time be limited only to spatial motion? Isn’t it because of the fact that these atoms exist imperishably across time, that we are able to study them in the first place? In modern science, the impact of time on atoms possibly is defined as half-life of radioactive atoms. But this is the effect of time not on the atom itself, but on a collection of similar atoms. We do not map the path of an atom with time.
Our study is based on the assumption that once established, these atoms do not change unless they come in contact with other atoms with which they react. This may be true when we only consider change as just the observable changes that we can observe. But is it true for unobservable change? We are far from having found tools that can decode all observable properties present in an atom. So, why haven’t we accounted for unobservable changes? Isn’t this the reason for uncertainty introduced in the location of electron in the orbit? Isn’t this the reason for uncertainty in the spin associated with electrons in the orbit?
If we need to study what reality is and its internals, change needs to be an integral part of scientific methodology. For example, when we study the composition of an atom, we need to understand that we have only mapped the “this instant state” of the atom. To make the study complete, we need to understand the work done to retain the composition of the atom to the “next instant state”. To do this, we need to define what is “this instant” and “next instant” is for an atom. The emphasis here is “instant for the atom”. Change cannot be devoid of a source, it has to be defined for a source.
Given that in modern science, we have defined time as a pseudo-constant arbitrarily auto-incremented series of durations, when we study from one instant frame of the pseudo-incremented time to the next instant frame of the pseudo-incremented time, we find that the atom has not changed. This leads us to false assumptions and we just try to map those points of change that intersect with our pseudo-timeline. Rather, had we defined a series of changes as time, then we find that the next instant gets only defined when the atom changes state. Then, we would have the path of the atom mapped, rather than just the current configuration.
There are many questions that are left open with the “Big Bang” theory, the “cosmological principle” and many theories, laws and postulates proposed by modern science. This is because each one of these theories, laws and postulates just consider a single domain of observable to propose the theory, concept or law. For example, Big bang uses the current light elements, CMB and other observables known to human mind, “quantum physics” just views matter and its formation, chemistry views just atoms and their interactions, medicine and pharmacy views just the interaction of chemicals with the human body and so on. What we need is to study a holistic view of reality and not bits and pieces of what is seen. The current scientific enquiries conducted is similar to the story of the “four blind men and an elephant”.
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
Similarly, in modern science, we explore in-depth, the nature of matter, or explore light elements or electrical elements or just quantum particles and don’t put them all together to understand reality. This leads us to ignore many trails of clues present in nature that is indicative of this reality around us. We need to find the breadcrumbs in the current state of reality which can contain a broken trail of clues that can be followed all the way to some beginning or some working hypothesis.
While there are drawbacks to the big bang theory, it should be noted that these drawbacks also serve as a set of breadcrumbs in nature that give us clues as to the formation of reality. It is true that extrapolation of the current state backwards is not a possibility, but the important clue that is present in the current state is that the prior state has to have the potential to lead to the current state of the universe.
For e.g., in our example of electrical energy distribution, rather than trying to extrapolate backwards, we can search for breadcrumbs to find the potential past. So, if we can find evidence to a fact that electrical energy cannot be present intrinsically but has to definitely be converted from another form of energy, then we can get a breadcrumb “some form(s) of convertible energy was present prior to the generation of electrical energy”. This then can lead us to the various energy forms that can be converted to electrical energy. With this information, we start seeing a set of options from which electrical energy can be formed.
So, we need to search for such breadcrumbs in nature that allows us to understand reality and its emergence. This then needs to be incorporated into our scientific enquiries, because the whole picture also has an effect on the in-depth working of specific concepts. There are some pretty big breadcrumbs lying around, when we start looking at nature. Some of the breadcrumbs are as below:
#1 Analogous nature of space and time
In modern science it is argued whether space and time have a nature at all. As I have listed in the previous chapter, space and time as we define it just seems like a pseudo-auto-incremented placeholder. Hence, they seem like they don’t have any inherent nature and are just present to sustain objects, events and mark a relative time of occurrence of the event. But, we should note that this is only the formal definition that is used in scientific study, that seems like that. We inherently have a notion of what we have space and time based on which inherently operate. Meaning, irrespective of what the formal definition of time is, we perceive change and hence are able to biologically peg a time of day or a passage of duration between two events or know when it is time to sleep and when it is time to wake up and so on. And irrespective of what the formal definition of space is, we have an inherent perception of distance, direction, speed and so on.
This inherent perception of space and time, according to each and every object is the same. Irrespective of what the formal definition and experiments say, it seems to us to be contiguous and without a break. It seems like it has been present infinitely from before we were born and will be present infinitely after we are dead. It seems as if space is contiguously present all around us without break and stretches into infinity in all directions.
This appearance is then the first breadcrumb in nature. We need to account for this appearance. Whether space and time are a truth that is present and that is truth also contiguous and infinite is totally different. The actual truth of space and time is unknown, unverifiable and disputable and hence cannot be considered as a clue. But, the fact that they appear so to us is undisputable and that has to be accounted for. Why does it appear so to us? What makes it appear so to us?
#2 Existence and existence of individuals
In modern science we consider matter as anything that occupies space and with mass, but no boundary is drawn around which set of “anything” that occupies space and has mass is considered as a discreet matter.
Let’s look at atmosphere of earth. It has many gaseous elements present in it, gases such as nitrogen, carbon-di-oxide, oxygen, argon, neon, helium, methane and so on. All individual atoms of gases have mass and occupy space, the electrons in the individual atoms also occupy space and has mass. So, is each electron a discreet matter or each atom discreet matter or the whole atmosphere matter? Same goes for anything in reality. Say, we look at stars in outer space. Is each individual star a discreet matter or atoms that make them matter?
But, irrespective of what the formal definition is, we inherently recognize and group various observables into individuals. We are able to perceive when a system is a composite of heterogeneous combination of various types of individuals and when we have a homogeneous individual and so on. We inherently are able to draw a boundary on matter that is perceived and treat them as individuals without any definition.
This is the next breadcrumb in nature. Why does it appear so to us? Again, like the previous breadcrumb, irrespective of what the truth is of matter and its grouping, why does a group appear as a specific homogeneous or heterogeneous individuals to us? How is this boundary established? While space and time appear as contiguous whole, why are there non-contiguous individuals present in it?
What is even more intriguing, which forms another breadcrumb is, how we inherently know of the existence of individuals and recognize various levels of existence in them. Thus, when we study we need to account for why we know a stone exists as a non-sentient article or a dog exists as a sentient being.
#3 All observers observe similar or related individuals and events
Modern science is driven to exploring what are gravitational waves. But does not question “why do all of us and all the non-sentient existing observe gravity the same way”? When we look at events around us the most insignificant to the most significant, does not matter what the classification is, all observers around that event observe the event as one, even though the impressions formed are varied. It can be said that the effect of an event is known in varied ways, but if an event is in the perceivable range of an observer, the event is observed by that observer and an observation formed from it. For example, all sentient and non-sentient existence know the event of existence of sun and when the sun sets and when the sun rises. All sentient and non-sentient existence react to the event of tornado, hurricane, earthquake and so on.
This then is the next breadcrumb. What is the unifying factor that ties all individuals existence together to observe the same event? It should be noted that an event need not be in the domain of just sense-able space. For example the magnetic field of earth is known and observed in various forms by all sentient and non-sentient existence on earth.
#4 All individual classes of observers have similar behaviour of existence
As we saw in breadcrumb #2, we are able to inherently recognize various individuals in nature. It should be noted that while I say “us”, I mean “all individuals existing” and not just “humans”. The way we recognize individuals may vary between different individuals existing, but all existing individuals recognize and are able to classify them.
It may be argued that it is not true and a non-sentient being does not recognize anything. But, it is not true. Let us take a stone and throw it at a concrete wall, it had to have recognized the existence of air and wall as individual entities for it to hit a wall and not go any further. The same if we throw a ball at the wall, it bounces off the wall. Different individuals reacting differently to the same individual, but both have recognized the existence of individual existing called wall. It can be argued that these acting according to the laws of physics. Sure, but what needs to be recognized is that “laws of physics is something that we as humans have defined based on our observation of behaviour of recognized individuals around us”. These laws are not proved to be correct or wrong by anything else other than by observation by us as individuals existing. Neither the stone nor the ball know the description of the laws of physics that humans have defined. They are just acting according to their nature which can very well change when the correct conditions are met even if the laws of physics describes it so or not.
The only thing that is proven and undisputable is that individuals existing can be grouped into classes of individuals. And individual classes of observers have similar behaviour when they encounter other classes of individuals. The question is How is this possible? What makes individuals recognize classes of individuals and how is it that they have the same behaviour when encountering these various classes of individuals? This then is the next breadcrumb that has to be accounted for.
The above is a small sample of many such breadcrumbs that are present in nature which has to be accounted for in every scientific study.