Sirs,
You have read I think many books and must have developed your own
independent perceptions.Please write now how you perceive,let us not be
bonded to the books only.Personally,I now sit under a tree or some nature
and try to smell and feel with my mind blank.Every morning I get some
topic,about which I had no notion.Persons like you,if you free yourself
from the fetters of books and just feel nature,can give really great
glimpses.
YM

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 4:11 AM Sithamalli Balasubramanian <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Q: is purely written by  JOHN HORGAN IN 1997 INTERVIEW EXTRACTED FROM HIS
> BOOK WHERE THE SCIENCE IS DEAD WAS PRONOUNCED AS EARLY AS 1966
> Reply: Honestly I was not aware of any such thing. I was writing from
> personal experience. I am happy that others too held such opinions.
>
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 at 11:22, Rajaram Krishnamurthy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 <
>> [email protected]> 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 <
>>> [email protected]> 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 <
>>>> [email protected]> 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 [email protected].
>>>>> 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 [email protected].
>>>> 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 [email protected].
>>> 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
>> "iyer123" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL5XZoqYrSUJZxS6ZMhAWd3mU0MFhaRVN0%3D3TjN7cftaKxDonw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL5XZoqYrSUJZxS6ZMhAWd3mU0MFhaRVN0%3D3TjN7cftaKxDonw%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 [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAOSW9WvuP7LYRHsaN2pTMvZ_XdhrFWoXAVi9js8DfJTDX69tqw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAOSW9WvuP7LYRHsaN2pTMvZ_XdhrFWoXAVi9js8DfJTDX69tqw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


-- 
*Mar*

-- 
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKSWG7cNtiCqJm6NsqGYoLjVVi%3Dbsoo6PAwckNgqA%2Bcog%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to