A philosopher must not be interested in any particular branch of
knowledge; he must try to develop 'knowledge about knowledge'. It
means he must understand the nature of 'facts about facts' and must
know/develop methods of justifying or rejecting the methods of
'creating' knowledge in every field of inquiry. A 'philosopher'
cannot divide his knowledge into different disciplines. Unfortunately
progress in technology has forced philosophers to become blind
supporters of science. A very large part of science is questionable
and I cannot
understand how philosophers are unable to find any fault with science.
In science are these "facts about facts' or just simplifying
assumptions?
1) At all magnitudes matter, in the form of elementary particles of
matter, is and remains the ultimate constituent of matter. Therefore
'matter' itself is never in a state of change and it never causes or
undergoes any change. (Then what is it that ultimately undergoes
change?)
2)'Matter' is discontinuous with particles and empty space. (The
elementary particles of matter act, react and interact with each other
by 'action at a distance' or by volition or by magic!
3) An object that is undergoing an internal change (is it in a state
of change?)
passes through a seies of equilibrium states. (A scientist agrees that
changes take place but does not allot any 'duration' of change! Change
is a miracle!)
4) Every process of (or activity leading to a) change, and every
change can be made to backtrack itself along the same course, by
putting the process in the reverse gear, at the same cost! (Is it true
in case of the WTC?)
5)In this world nothing causes any change and nothing undergoes any
change. (Then what is the purpose of seeking knowledge; what is
science all about?)
6) In this world all changes are illusions. and therefore all
distinctions
between the past, present and the future is an illusion,although a
persistent one. (Science develops knowledge from illusions in order to
apply it to illusions - paradoxes?)
7) Matter does not contain any constituent of life; life cannot
originate or evolve in this world by any kind of interactionof matter
and its environment or
by its own self-organisation. BUT according to the known laes of
nature, matter,
of which living beings are composed,is so frail that it cannot resist
even for a moment without life. (How life resists decay? Where does
life come from and where does it go?)
The desire to only develop and use definitely assured methods of
creating knowledge convincingly misleads us into believing that the
'knowledge' (all visible effects) prodused by projecting a film
backwards, depicts a perfectly logical and scientifically possible
phenomenon, whether it is the sight of a match stick being regenerated
from its flame or the sight of completely destroyed and burnt
components of World Trade Centre being regenerated and reassembled and
all the men coming back to life by 'process in the reverse gear!'
Science remaoves need for sympathy of human values.
In science the idea that 'the intelligible is immutable' is not a
conclusion
but a necessary simplifying assumption because 'matter' re-constructed
from knowledge about it does not and cannot possess, exhibit and
provide the same knowledge again.
Please visit my home page titled 'A Challenge to all those who believe
that Newton and Einstein cannot be proved wrong.' at
http://www.geocities.com/vgopal11/trueknowledge.htm
|
