Book: Surya Siddanta: Changing scientific study

Expanding scientific methodology

As we saw in the previous chapters, 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 fail to account for the role “thought” and “change” has to play in the various physical, chemical, mathematical and in other areas of scientific enquiries. 

Extending scientific study to include thought

Why do we need to consider thought? 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 on then 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 of the light that impinges traverse the nerve to the brain which then forms the thought of colour. We then associate those thoughts formed to various words such as red, blue, green and so on to be able to communicate with others. So, would we say that the frequency of light impinging the nerves is “colour” or the “thought that formed when the light impinged the eye, the colour”? Aren’t they two distinct things? The thought formed is the concept and the frequency of light the rendering of that concept. 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 “a form of thought”. 

Isn’t it necessary for us to include that “thought of the concept” into our scientific enquiry and study how that 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 thoughts around that basic thought of matter rather than study that underlying concept contained in that concept thought 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 to recognise something, 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 and leads to erroneous conclusions, which is what we have seen.

Extending scientific study to include change

There is a saying called “Out of sight out of mind”. But, we continuously see matter, light and other elements of reality around us. So, either all things around us are continuously moving along with us on the axis of time or we should have stopped detecting them and hence forgotten them. This stability of reality around us cannot be then got.

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. 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? 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?

Scientific methodology studies across time only anything connected with motion which leads to erroneous conclusions. Isn’t it because of the fact that these atoms exist imperishably that we are able to study them in the first place? 

Our study is based on the fact 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 an observable fact, but is it true for unobservable change? We are far from having found tools that can decode all observable properties present. 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?