From: fafat@usc.edu (Vijay Fafat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: darwin,ancients, moderns, all that jazz..
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:56:54 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Woopie babu writes:
>this is for fafat and his friends who have tough time believing
>anything that goes against the western interpretation of our ancient
>past:

	Wrong! I don't have a tough time believing anything *because*
	the westerners say so. They're simply not palatable to my
	own logic, trained of course, by "western" knowledge. See if
	you can understand the difference.


>when one of our fellow sci'ers pointed out the possibility that our
>ancients might have been of the opinion that the universe is cyclical
>in nature, these people reacted with disdain.  

	Just to give 2 reasons for the disdain (which is most definitely
	there):
	1] NO reason is given for such a speculation and as such, remains
	   just that.
	2] These same to same "knowledgeable" peepuls also gave reasons
	   for the eclipses which , to say the least, were naive. Ancients
	   who can talk about an oscillating universe should have been 
	   able to say it *clearly* that something like an eclipse is not
	   a satanic act of a demon.

	BTW, if you remember, I had also said that even the cyclical nature
	of the universe idea of the vedas is WRONG because they talk about 
	the same length for each cycle whereas in case the universe is cyclic, 
	the periods would go on increasing. So how's that for disdain? 


>'our ancients used nuclear weapons' draws the same reaction from me, I
>have learned to respect our ancients' philosophical achievements.

	babu, babu, babu. I've always said that if you consider them
	*philosophical* achievements, fine with me. Just don't tell me
	that they had any real idea what they were talking about
	vis-a-vis "reality". Even Aristotle held sway for a LOOONGGG
	time and he was total garbage as far as reality went.


>I can't deduce anything directly from this, but I would definitely give
>a benefit of doubt to our ancients. I will be SURE only the day I am
>convinced that such cosmological theories can be obtained from
>philosophical speculations [with a minimal amount of empirical data
>that would've been available in those days]

	You're doomed to an Eternal wait, Babu. The human imagination
	can build a lot of perfectly workable Universes with their own
	laws. Unfortunately, Nature chooses her own course. You *have*
	to come back to your instruments. 


>as far as the engineering advances of our ancients are concerned, I can
>visualize an imaginary ancient laughing at us, sitting on top of the
>iron pillar in Delhi that doesn't rust.

	That does'nt prove they knew about electrons.... Alchemists
	certainly got something for all their almost wasted efforts.
	That does'nt mean they were capable of performing bypass surgery...


>discovery)..... When it comes to conceptual issues scientists are no
>more immune to confusion than lay people. After all, scientists spend
>quite a bit of time in their armchairs, trying to figure out how to
>interpret the results of everybody's experiments, and what they do in
>those moments blends imperceptibly into what philosophers do. Risky
>business, but invigorating."

	Here's Dirac for you:

	The only object of theoretical Physics is to calculate results
	that can be compared with experiment. It is quite unnecessary 
	that any satisfying description of the whole course of the 
	phenomenon must be given.


>I have read about a 'Bell Theorem' which was put forward by a physicist
>from CERN in 1964, which attacks the assumption of local cause. This, I
	[deleted]
>theorem, and that of David Bohm, point at the existence of a {\em
>unbroken wholeness}.
>Anybody who is familiar with the Veda and the upanishad know what they
>are talking about. read the last chapter of the book 'The Dancing Wu Li
>Masters' if you haven't done that already. See the Vedas and Upanishads
>in light of what the author talks about [see, you always need a western
>to tell you about your importance]. you will understand what our
>ancients were talking about when they were out to experience that
>'ultimate reality.'

	Books like the Tao of Physics and "Dancing.." attempt to link
	Eastern mysticism with Modern Physics. That, in no way, raises
	the status of the Upanishadas to "scientific knowledge". What
	is required is atleast *one* working description, a blueprint,
	an organizing principle, ... anything. Not just speculations..
	And mind you, only a few of the speculations seem to hit home. Most
	others are absolutely wild and known to be incorrect. Worma might
	jump and tell me that you have to interpret it "psychologically".
	To him, I say, " disprove my turtle theory".


>
>there are many ways to realize the Truth. our ancients have done it by
>studying the 'inside'. the west is still trying to find the same Truth
>studying the 'outside.'

	what's Truth?


>physicits are becoming increasingly open. If you are in search of the
>ultimate reality, you can't afford not to be.

	A specious argument. scientist becoming increasingly open
	means they no longer trust common sense, not that they would
	take any cock and bull without substantiation.


>regarding the symbolic way in which the 'truth' is described in our
>pura'n'as -- the profound philosophical truths that have been result of
>thousands of years of thought cannot be comprehended by common people.
>if you were asked to let people know of these thoughts in the easiest
>way possible, what would you have done?

	Surprise! That's being done TODAY! QM and GR are not kiddie stuff
	and are beyond most people.That does'nt cause people to throw away 
	their field equations.Rather,they are explained as Popular Science but
	at the same time, the original hairy stuff is retained. The 
	Vedicists seem to have thrown away the baby and just kept the
	imagery! 

	FFT




Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian