Pranam
Sir SKBji-all that you wrote as quote is purely written by JOHN HORGAN
IN 1997 INTERVIEW EXTRACTED FROM HIS BOOK WHERE THE SCIENCE IS DEAD WAS
PRONOUNCED AS EARLY AS 1966. I did not express anything except the 1st 2
paras. KR IRS 2`1221
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 21:50, Sithamalli Balasubramanian <
sithamal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Quote: "Many modern scientists hope that advances in computers and
> mathematics will enable them to transcend their current knowledge and
> create a powerful new science".
> Reply: There is a lot of delusion. The view given by you was that of P.A.M
> Dirac. I often cite the failure of Nazis to produce the atom bomb as an
> example of this delusion. The Nazi program was headed by Werner Heisenberg
> who was a shade worse than Dirac. He was about to be expelled by his HOD
> Staudinger for his contempt of empiricism. Mathematics is mainly
> responsible for this.
> 2. Quote: "*Darwinian theory does not provide very deep insights into* human
> nature"
> Reply: I think Mahabharata does it effectively. All aspects of Human
> nature find examples in that epic.
> Darwinisam is not relevant to the human condition.
> 3. Quote: prove it is false
> Reply: Your interaction is enviable. Kopper did not have a theory of
> Science. He was only an analyst. A theory is proposed to explain a number
> of observations, but does not cover all. A theory should also provide for
> it to be shown false. It should survive such efforts.
> This is a running argument I am having with specialists. A few days back
> one such person asked me if I believed in Peer review process. His argument
> was,"How would I know if the views are correct." I told him definitions and
> standards may be appealing but they are also limiting. Peer review should
> not be practiced as peer veto. There should be an allowance for dissent.
> This is also the essence of Pepper's idea.
> Good luck to you,
> Skb.
> James Cushing wrote to me from his death-bed that he was only a historian
> of science.That was a case of both dedication and humility. He died a few
> days later. Still he found time to reply.
> Skb.
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 09:36, Rajaram Krishnamurthy <keyarinc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Pranam
>> 1 The impact of a heart vailing for nature coming out of the
>> bottom of the heart. I thought of releasing this under the Sri SKB YM
>> combination on science articles of yesterday about why science is dead.
>> However it fits in here too so in continuation of Sri YM and Sri SKB where
>> we left it in the past, the present and the future.
>> 2 INTELLECTUAL DOWN FALL, EDUCATION AND THE SCIENCE IS DEAD:
>>
>> Sri SKB’s aspects:
>>
>> 1 In fact, I have a feeling that India's intellectual downfall
>> started with Shankara and his philosophy of Maya which denied existential
>> reality.
>>
>> 2 Following Shakespeare I would say, "Education thou art thine own enemy".
>>
>> 3 The US science education is most impressive. But it is also
>> illusory. In Chemistry all fundamental work was done before WW-II in
>> Europe. The post-war US was flush with money whilst other European nations
>> were poorer. The result was flashy synthetic work which meant nothing
>> fundamental. Chemistry 'ended' 30 years later. Physics endured a little
>> longer because of NASA and missiles. Electronics have a field day now.
>> Again they are harvesting what was found in the early 1900s.
>>
>> All science research will become a commodities market in another fifty
>> years. Science is nearing its end. With that also will end
>> institutionalized 'knowledge'.
>>
>> 4 we differ in our perspective.
>>
>> Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> 1 The views expressed by Sri SKBji is not absolutely different
>> perspective from mine; even though a Physicist by curriculum, while I hold
>> the respect to SCIENCE, I should demarcate the respect by distinguishing
>> the modern era science which everyone dance around and the science existed
>> time immemorial, ascribed in in the Vedas and Vedanta. FOR THE WEST SCIENCE
>> MAY BE A PRODUCT OF 1600 AD OR LITTLE EARLIER TO GREECE, ARISTOTLE,
>> ARCHIMEDES, SOCRATES ETC WHO ARROGANTLY HID THEIR HEADS INTO THE SAND DUNES
>> LIKE AN OSTRITCH, TRYING NOT TO SEE THE VEDIC COUNTRY, WHERE THEY
>> RESIDED FOR 200 YEARS DIGGING ALL THE VEDIC CONTENTS RECORDING ALL OF THEM
>> IN THEIR LANGUAGE WITH A MYTHICAL FERN, ROBBING MANY LEAVES, RESURRECTING
>> FROM THEM ALL THE OUTBURSTS OF QUICK SCIENCE THE WORLD COULD NOT WITHSTAND
>> THE RAPID CHANGES.
>>
>> 2 In this connection I have to salute them for so many books written
>> in English translating ,though haphazardly, the entire Vidya of this
>> nation, which the host failed in giving them to the brothers and sisters of
>> this nation; while I have to accuse this nation for the failure to
>> highlight the ancient authors in English or any other language other than
>> the Sanskrit, of Adi sankaras to sayanas to Madwacharias and many authors
>> of the Brahmin and west Bengal chatergies of 1800 AD and thereafter. As
>> SKBji states in one sense the education is useless as 99.99% of the ONCE
>> LEARNED population of this present learned population, failed to read books
>> or read books of unimportance or never even where the libraries do exist.
>> ((.99% were proud of their achievements which include the “THE- VID”
>> BRAHMINS OF THIS NATION 2% OF THE POPULATION (NOW SOME SAY IT IS 5%) .
>> There appears to be a light around the tunnel viz the youth of this nation
>> is beginning to feel about it; I do prey lest the elders do not act as a
>> spoke.
>>
>> 3 Sri SKBji’s regret that science has ended reveals his
>> knowledge of the science reporting. I also remember a similar recording in
>> the book THE END OF SCIENCE BY John Horgan a New York journalist in 1970s;
>> it was followed up magazine, Television interviews also. The crux of the
>> book is:
>>
>> 4 “ John Horgan contends that science—and particularly pure
>> science rather than applied science, technology and medicine—is coming to
>> an end. This controversial hypothesis, which has received wide attention,
>> has at once been greeted by consternation by many (but certainly not all)
>> in the scientific community while giving comfort to those who want anything
>> to do with science and technology to go away.
>>
>> 5 Einstein's theory of special relativity prohibits the
>> transmission of matter or even information at speeds faster than that of
>> light. Quantum mechanics dictates that our knowledge of the micro realm
>> will always be slightly blurred. Chaos theory confirms that even without
>> quantum indeterminacy many phenomena would be impossible to predict. And
>> evolutionary biology keeps reminding us that we are animals, designed by
>> natural selection not for discovering deep truths of nature but for
>> breeding.
>>
>> 6 For the most part these *over-reachers* have only one
>> option: to pursue science in a speculative, non-empirical mode that I call
>> *ironic
>> science*. Ironic science resembles literature or philosophy or theology
>> in that it offers points of view, opinions, which are, at best,
>> "interesting," which provoke further comment. But it does not converge on
>> the truth.
>>
>> One of the most spectacular examples of ironic science is superstring
>> theory, which for more than a decade has been the leading contender for a
>> unified theory of physics. Often called a "theory of everything," it posits
>> that all the matter and energy in the universe and even space and time stem
>> from infinitesimal, string-like particles wriggling in a hyperspace
>> consisting of 10 (or more) dimensions. Unfortunately, the micro realm that
>> superstrings allegedly inhabit is completely inaccessible to human
>> experimenters. A superstring is supposedly as small in comparison to a
>> proton as a proton is in comparison to the solar system. Probing this realm
>> directly would require an accelerator 1,000 light years around. Our entire
>> solar system is only one light day around. It is this problem that led the
>> Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow to compare superstring theorists to
>> "medieval theologians." *How many superstrings can dance on the head of
>> a pin? * { KR yoga vasishtam speaks about multi universes in the edge
>> of a pin. }
>>
>> 7 In biology, we have the Gaia hypothesis of Lynn Margulis
>> and James Lovelock, which suggests that all organisms somehow cooperate to
>> ensure their self-perpetuation. Then there are the anti-Darwinian proposals
>> of Brian Goodwin and Stuart Kauffman, who think life stems not primarily
>> from natural selection but from some mysterious "laws of complexity" that
>> they have glimpsed in their computer simulations. {KR Yoga vasishtam
>> speaks about mysterious maya}
>>
>> 8 You can't determine the probability of the universe or of
>> life on earth when you have only one universe and one history of life to
>> contemplate. So, again, it is true that *answers always raise new
>> questions. But that does not mean that science will never end. It only
>> means that science can never answer all possible questions, it can never
>> quench our curiosity, it can never be complete* If you view atoms and
>> elements and the double helix and viruses and stars and galaxies as
>> inventions, projections of our culture, which future cultures may replace
>> with other convenient illusions*, then you are unlikely to agree with me
>> that science is finite*. If science is as ephemeral as art, of course it
>> can continue forever. But if you think that science is a process of
>> discovery rather than merely of invention, if you believe that science is
>> capable of achieving genuine truth, then you must take seriously the
>> possibility that all the great, genuine paradigm shifts are behind us.
>>
>> 9 In a way, all biology since Darwin has been normal
>> science. Even Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix, although it
>> has had enormous practical consequences, *merely revealed how heredity
>> works* on a molecular level. Many modern scientists hope that advances
>> in computers and mathematics will enable them to transcend their current
>> knowledge and create a powerful new science. *This is the faith that
>> sustains the trendy fields of chaos and complexity*. I termed it in a
>> single term, *chaoplexity,* because, I realized that there is no
>> significant difference between them.
>>
>> 10 The fields of both chaos and complexity have held out
>> the hope that much of the noise that seems to pervade nature *is
>> actually pseudo-noise,* the result of some underlying, deterministic
>> algorithm. But the noise that makes it so difficult to predict earthquakes,
>> the stock market, the weather and other phenomena, *is not apparent but
>> very real*. This kind of noisiness will never be reduced to any simple
>> set of rules, in my view. At some point, we are drifting over the line from
>> science per se toward engineering. The model either works or doesn't work
>> according to some standard of effectiveness; "truth" is irrelevant.
>> Moreover, chaos theory tells us that there is a fundamental limit to
>> forecasting related to the butterfly effect. One has to know the initial
>> conditions of a system with infinite precision to be able to predict its
>> course. According to one of their fundamental tenets, the butterfly effect,
>> many of their goals may be impossible to achieve. {KR Yoga vasishtam says
>> that nature is unpredictable}
>>
>> 11 Neuroscience will not deliver what so many philosophers
>> and scientists yearn for. It will not solve all the ancient philosophical
>> mysteries relating to the mind and the mind-body problem, the problem of
>> free will, the solipsism paradox, and so on. Nor will neuroscience
>> demonstrate that consciousness is somehow a necessary component of
>> existence, which is an idea that is alluring not only to New Agers but also
>> to scientists and philosophers who should know better. The universe existed
>> for billions of years before we came along, and it will continue to exist
>> for eons after we and our minds are gone. {KR: all the Vedic scriptures of
>> India recited the same thing} Psychologists, social scientists,
>> neuroscientists and others seeking the key to the human psyche will
>> periodically seize upon some "new" paradigm as the answer to their prayers.
>> One paradigm that proves perennially alluring is Darwinian theory, which in
>> its latest incarnation is called evolutionary psychology. But as crucial as
>> it is for understanding life in general, *Darwinian theory does not
>> provide very deep insights into* human nature, as I tried to show in
>> "The New Social Darwinists," published in the October 1995 Scientific
>> American.
>>
>> 12 N*anotechnology *often compare science to chess. The rules of
>> chess are quite simple, but the number of possible games that these rules
>> can give rise to is virtually infinite. One might have more confidence in
>> scientists' ability *to crack the riddle of senescence* if they had had
>> more success with a presumably simpler problem: cancer. The U.S. has spent
>> more than $30 billion on research. But overall mortality rates have
>> remained pretty much flat since 1971 and in fact for the last 50 years.
>>
>> The best thing about making immortality the primary goal of science,
>> Sapolsky scientist said, is that it is almost certainly unattainable, so
>> scientists can keep getting funds for more research forever.
>>
>> 13 I describe an interview with the great philosopher Karl Popper, who
>> argued that scientists can never prove a theory is true; they can only
>> falsify it, or prove it is false. Naturally I had to ask Popper, Is your
>> falsifiability hypothesis falsifiable? Popper was 90 (in 1997) then, but
>> still intellectually armed and very dangerous. He put his hand on my hand,
>> looked deep into my eyes, and said, very gently, "I don't want to hurt you,
>> but it is a silly question."
>>
>> 14 So obviously any prediction about the future of human
>> culture is *an educated guess*, at best, at least compared to nuclear
>> physics, or astronomy, or other disciplines that prove certain facts beyond
>> a reasonable doubt. {KR uncertainty under BG, Tirukkural and Upanishads a
>> lot of. Also Perfect astrology of India is certain however, many do the
>> educated guess. I think my end-of-science scenario is much more plausible
>> than the ones that I am trying to displace, in which we keep discovering
>> profound new truths about the universe forever or arrive at an end point in
>> which we achieve perfect wisdom and mastery over nature.
>>
>> 15 We are not going to invent warp-drive spaceships that can take
>> us to other galaxies or even other universes. We are not going to become
>> infinitely wise or immortal through genetic engineering. We are not going
>> to discover the mind of God, as the British physicist Stephen Hawking once
>> put it. We are not going to know why there is something rather than
>> nothing. We'll be stuck in a permanent state of wonder before the mystery
>> of existence which may not be such a terrible thing. After all, our sense
>> of wonder is the wellspring not only of science but also of art, and
>> literature, and philosophy, and religion. “(End of his views)
>>
>> 16 As seen above, there can be different perceptions also. However,
>> the perception being duality may look apparent. But only one perception
>> will be the truth. Time would decide it. KR IRS 20221
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 06:30, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
>> markandeya101...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Mar*Emotional-Vs-Mechanical
>>>
>>> Hell certainly is real. It is kicking and prospering. It is called
>>> economic prosperity. It is based on converting the entire Biosphere into a
>>> usable and abusable resource. In hell emotions and feelings get hurt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When you look at your parents, husband, wife, children, friends, your
>>> pet dog or cat, you want to interact emotionally and not interact with the
>>> digestion mechanical system, the kidney clearance system, the nervous
>>> system or any other mechanical system. They are not machines. They are
>>> entities of emotions meant by nature to
>>> breathe,smell,sense,perceive,understand,interact,help,love,belong,participate,all
>>> based on the climate. You live in emotions and feelings and they are part
>>> of the flora, fauna and geography of emotions. You feel as living by
>>> breathing.
>>>
>>> Climate means the emotions that result from temperature, rainfall, the
>>> resulting biosphere…the living emotional systems. Perception and
>>> understanding can only be emotional and never mechanical. Your family and
>>> friends are not mechanical systems. They are part of the weather and
>>> climate. You inhale and exhale emotions, as part of the climatic rhythm.
>>>
>>> When you poison the air, water, land and geography, you poison your
>>> emotional flow and emotional life. The gigantic Buildings, Projects, Roads
>>> etc built after the murder of nature in diverse living forms or emotion
>>> forms can never bring happiness. They are tragedies.
>>>
>>> Science wants you to be rid of emotions to develop the inanimate, non
>>> emotional, mechanical, scientific outlook and the mechanical or scientific
>>> temperament. You must attack your own breathing system to develop the
>>> needed mechanical temperament and start destroying nature for economic
>>> development.
>>>
>>> The net result of this science hysteria is the emergence of economic
>>> life based on the routine destruction of nature, involving the death and
>>> misery to every organism in the biosphere, and Lakhs of specie have become
>>> extinct.
>>>
>>> Perception and understanding are the collective symbiotic life of the
>>> Biosphere as a whole and can never be the isolated individual talent of
>>> human individuals. Alienation is suicide as living. We need the Biosphere
>>> for our emotional living, which is the only living.
>>>
>>> Now we are coming across persons, who simply write off every feeling or
>>> even reasoning even without reading or seeing, take pride in egoism and
>>> proclaim that they have written as they are entitled to show contempt. From
>>> emotional symbiosis, the drift down is contempt based antibiosis. They
>>> adore their contempt and if anyone shows liking to the object of their
>>> contempt, they attack.
>>>
>>> YM
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "iyer123" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to iyer123+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CACDCHCKT%2BY56v%2BfOsg3dLGqx_mgpSj7dkNp-DZ9%3D3Wwe3TnQ%2BA%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CACDCHCKT%2BY56v%2BfOsg3dLGqx_mgpSj7dkNp-DZ9%3D3Wwe3TnQ%2BA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "iyer123" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to iyer123+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL5XZorBW_dbNBEam41RVCfDg_gt3YC5F_mTrd1fgyhd_CabTA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL5XZorBW_dbNBEam41RVCfDg_gt3YC5F_mTrd1fgyhd_CabTA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "iyer123" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to iyer123+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAOSW9WuT47PabTShrtwwOudp%2BBGfVF%3DRLEsB15e-C-uK5kMBgA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAOSW9WuT47PabTShrtwwOudp%2BBGfVF%3DRLEsB15e-C-uK5kMBgA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to thatha_patty+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqYrSUJZxS6ZMhAWd3mU0MFhaRVN0%3D3TjN7cftaKxDonw%40mail.gmail.com.
