Scientific Argumentation and Universal Logic in understanding the Universe
Part II
We were talking about how the alignment of “proving it” and “making sense” goes haywire with descriptions of deeper orders of reality, at times so much so that only the scientist in us happens to stomach them, and part of us still crave for an overarching clearer picture—causing an ever greater rift between the scientific endeavors and seeing the all-encompassing picture of reality, where we also reside. The reality is one, scientifically or otherwise. Science in no way takes us to a hazy confounding zone, but to see a true order we have to look at the scientific data with a broader, overarching perspective.
It’s just that with prodigious scientific advancements intricate details seep in, and “making sense” starts to fall outside the boundaries of scientific endeavor: because now it involves “us” seeing it differently. Like the tangled issue of the beginning of time that I brought up in the last post. No matter what rationality, the beginning of the universe via black hole, or the time having no beginning or end, as we are now learning, glaring quandaries nudge us for clarity—like what banged in the big-bang, or what’s the true nature of this timeless space-time.
As quirky as it gets, the beginning of time, whether through black hole or big bang (the linked article in the previous post argues for black hole as an alternative scenario of big bang), in the end could only be as mysterious as a colorblind entity chewing over the beauty of a rainbow. In seeing the reality, the time having a beginning seems a graver scenario than the case of an overarching continuum that flows eternally—simply because the earlier case incites further perplexities. The obvious one is how the time itself emerges out of nowhere. Some other blatant questions.
Arriving at the reality might take boxing of all the inputs and thinking outside the box. I would again have to pass on saying more on this here for the sake of space and post, and for the sake of you reading the book Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We? instead.
In the earlier post I brought up the other mystifying subject that is infiltrating the bounds of scientific understanding—the emergence of consciousness in the continuum of space-time. An indispensible description, if we are to see a full meaning in the picture that has sprung from centuries of research and contemplation. Here again though we are struck with the oddity of joining a clear empirical deduction, from cosmological and quantum physics, to an order that appears to be abstractly—the nature of consciousness. We are puzzled over sewing part-science part I-don’t-know-what together.
Any hindrance in this process cialis price online can lead to male impotence. The energetic drug works in an equivalent manner to give an canadian pharmacy for viagra effective result while engaged in the lovemaking session. Balanced Diet: Our body requires a mix of well-balanced vitamins and minerals to function efficiently, it is scientifically established that vitamin A, B2, B6, D, E and C and zinc are essential immune system boosters. sildenafil online no prescription Kamagra, even in its most basic form which is 10 mg, is effective to http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/piglet-squid/ levitra low cost activate collaterals, harmonize qi and blood, improve the function of the body, and enhance immunity.
I was looking forward to a recently held debate on the topic of Death contested between two teams of scientists, one arguing for the existence of life beyond death, and the other against. I happened not to watch the debate, but after finding out that the team against the idea won, I out of curiosity glanced bits of the video. You can watch it in Sean Carroll’s blog under the post Afterlife Aftermath. The neuroscientist who was trying to make his argument—upholding the existence of life beyond death—based on personal experience and neurological understanding belonged to the loser team [no pun intended]. The forlorn look of the neuroscientist was pitiful [not taking sides]. His struggle might have to do with our lack of scientific vocabulary to illustrate the subtleties of defining consciousness or our experiences, which could, in the end, provide a full picture of reality. The reality that science proves and we feel confounded about.
But in the end, in understanding the uttermost reality, the question of us or consciousness undeniably leads to the query of the truest nature of self. Read on Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are we?
Ultimately “making-sense” becomes foundational after certain threshold of “proving” is attained, for us to move forward, on scientific ground or otherwise. And basically it is “making sense,” at a common level, that not only authenticates but also translates the empirical doctrines.
All reasoning welcome,
Neeti.
