[Advaita-l] Science & Consistency

[Sarma KV]

Science tries to know the world from within it. Hence its "reach" is
limited. Possibility of having a universally applicable scientific theory is
far-fetched from science's present form.



On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Michael Shepherd <
michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Nice question to ponder !
>
> Since 'science' means 'knowing', I suggest that all the sciences must be of
> their nature, analogous to sadhana : indriya under the witness of atman
> lead
> to chid-abhaasa and to chit, which however needs constant refreshment from
> chid...
>
> Donald Rumsfeld was laughed at for this -- but he spoke truth :
>
> 'There are things we know we know; and things we know we don't know; and
> things we don't know we don't know...'
>
> Could be a definition of sadhana ? :)
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Yuvaraj
> Athur Raghuvir
> Sent: 25 August 2009 14:13
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Science & Consistency
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Science as I know it is largely consistent. However there are
> paradoxes (like EPR, Schrodinger's cat, etc) which are indications of
> potential inconsistencies in the theories so far proposed. Paradoxes
> pushes understanding further since that is when new theories replace
> older ones to explain  the observed phenomena.
>
> However, from my understanding of Goedel's work in logic, a consistent
> logical system cannot prove all true statements. This means that there
> can exist statements that are true but not provably true. To me,
> scientific explaination is at the level of proof. And thus in a
> consistent scientific theory, I would expect incompleteness.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Yuva
>
>
>
> On 8/24/09, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Mahesh Ursekar wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All:
> >>
> >> Is science logically consistent? By which I mean, is the understanding
> of
> >> a
> >> concept in one branch of science used consistently in every other
> branch?
> >>
> >
> > Hmm perhaps this question might get a better answer in a philosophy of
> > science list but my understanding is this.  While the fundemental
> > underpinnings of science aren't 100% settled yet, most scientists have
> > hope that they can be.
> >
> > Or I have heard it put this way: All of biology is a branch of chemistry,
> > all
> > of chemistry is a branch of physics, and all of physics is a branch of
> > mathematics!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>



-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------
नगुरोरधिकं नगुरोरधिकं नगुरोरधिकं नगुरोरधिकम्।
शिवशासनतश्शिवशासनतः शिवशासनतश्शिवशासनतः ।।

Best Regards,
Syam
------------------------------------------------------------------