Five Grades of Sexual Interaction

Five Grades of Sexual Interaction

Summary: With the evolution of self awareness in human beings, we have been conferred with the ability to voluntarily regulate our sexual activities. We are expected to act prudently and pragmatically but we often choose to act sentimentally and thus have a propensity towards indiscriminate sex. Human beings indulge in sexual activities to a varying extent. Depending upon nature and extent  of  sexual activities, sexual interaction are classified in to five grades namely, sex for money, sex for sex, impulsive sex, compulsive sex and post marital sex.

Sexual reproduction evolved early in evolutionary history as a means to perpetuate races and species. It is a means of exchange of genetic material between members of the same species. This exchange of genetic material in one or the other way has been seen in all types of organisms ranging from viruses and bacteria to human beings. Biologists interpret sexual reproduction as essential to maintain vigor and vitality of races and species. Therefore sexual reproduction may be seen as survival mechanism for perpetuation of races and species.

In all species except human beings, sexual activities are self regulating. But in humans instead of involuntary regulation of sexual activities, with evolution of self awareness humans have been conferred the ability to voluntarily regulate their sexual activities. Sexual pleasure is the core sentiment or the incentive or motive to indulge in acts of procreation but the primary purpose of sexual interaction remains perpetuation of races and species. In humans, sexual activities have wide ranging repercussions on various aspects of human life. With acquisition of self awareness or voluntary intelligence, humans are expected to act prudently and pragmatically and therefore human society has felt the need to regulate this pleasure seeking sex drive. This need is partly because of the fidelity sentiment and partly because of the need to preserve integrity of the lowest level of human organization i.e. family and several other reasons.

However humans endowed with propensity towards reckless sexual activities, often choose to act sentimentally and not pragmatically and prudently. Some of the authorities in the field of Psychology even identify sexual deprivation as the reason behind all psychiatric ailments. Depending upon attendant circumstances, human sexual interaction can be classified in to five grades which are as under:-

1.     Grade1 - Sex for money Sexual interaction takes place only because of some reward in the form of cash or kind. Numerous examples are commonly seen for example Prostitution, screen sex indulged in by actors and models, sex to secure business contracts, sex to obtain other material favors.

2.     Grade2 – Sex for the sake of sex  Both the partners have a biological urge and no other emotional or material relationship. They engage each other sexually only to satisfy the physical need. Both the partners do not suffer from any inhibition to prevent them from having sex. For them it is just for the sake of fun and no other reason. None of the partners carries any historical baggage after the encounter. Examples are: one night stand, sex buddies etc. Sex buddies are basically engaged in some pursuit because of which they are avoiding any committed relationship but still have a sexual urge which they need to satisfy. So they explicitly agree to mutually satisfy this need without entering into any sentimental or material or otherwise binding relationship.

3.     Grade3 – Impulsive Sex  Both partners are sentimentally hooked by each other and at the spur of the moment that they have a strong sexual desire which must be met there and then. All inhibitions go hay wire. So two individuals indulge in transient sexual relationship. Most of the persons indulging in this kind of activity have a liberal attitude towards sex and look upon it as a pleasure seeking activity.

4.     Grade4 – Compulsive sex Partners are locked under such circumstances that sex is inevitable such as live in relationship, keeps, between lovers etc. This is generally a prolonged relationship but without any matrimonial relationship.

5.                     Grade5 – Post marital sex This is sexual relationship between husband and wife. This sexual activity meets social approval. Here the element of mutual commitment is the factor driving sexual interaction. This grade of sexual interaction is socially recognized, confers legal rights and several socioeconomic privileges. It takes care of several short term and long term human needs and interests. Post marital sex also satisfies the human sentiment of fidelity or exclusivity in sexual relationship. It makes the relationship intimate and is often the glue that helps sustain matrimonial relationship. Survival of family is crucial to parental care and care of the elderly.

Finally it is for you to select among various options and to pass value judgments if any.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This article is inspired by author’s understanding of nature.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Core Controversy Surrounding Consciousness

Core controversy surrounding Consciousness

Cover Page

Consciousness is the ability of nature to perceive reality and respond to it. All of us have experienced this natural ability and therefore there can’t be any controversy about its existence.

However of origin of consciousness is surrounded in controversy. Some say it preceded creation of universe while others say that it came in to being in the course of progressive development of nature and universe. Therefore, it is a horse and cart problem – whether the horse is before the cart or cart is before the horse.

Matter is divided in to nonliving matter and living matter. Majority of thinkers have held nonliving matter to be devoid of consciousness and it is further held that somewhere along the path consciousness crept in to matter to give rise to living matter or life. But this view does not explain origin and source of consciousness.

Majority of religious philosophers have sought to resolve this dilemma by drawing a strict line of distinction between soul and body. They say that body is different and soul is different and accordingly realization of this difference is one of the pious goals of human life. Almost all the religious philosophies except Buddhism hold that soul is eternal, different and separate from body even though residing in body and death means soul deserting the body. Buddhists preach that soul has no separate existence from body and it is all in the ensemble. However even Buddhist leave one question unanswered “Who is the designer?”.

Lewes in the first volume of Problems of Life and Mind (1874) endorsed the Buddhist view. He stated that regrouping of physical motion of molecules in to chemical action lead to emergence of novelties and the same is true of vital phenomenon, social phenomenon and psychical phenomenon, there is regrouping, not the introduction of new material, above all not a casting away of old. However I wish to point out that mere regrouping is not sufficient to explain emergence of novelties (not detailed).

However Hegel in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) portrayed a self actualizing universe which came to understand itself through the minds of conscious beings. Hegel noted that in human species mind evolved through discontinuous, ascending perceptive levels.   

Jain philosophy recognizes ascending perceptive levels as ranging from organisms with a single sense to organisms with five senses.

Sherrington explicitly described the core controversy surrounding consciousness as two alternatives:-

            “We are once more at a crucial parting of ways. And I think at bottom it comes to this. One route leads to the view that mind is emergent in the course of evolutionary history. The other path leads to the view that mind is not emergent. It is not an evolutionary stage in the natural history of the psychical correlates of physical events. It enters the world endowed with an original capacity for apprehending that world, with its several categories, through the use of sense-organs and brains, evolved to that end in a manner which it is for biologists to disclose. This apprehension is part of the mind’s inherent activity which with the conduct it sub served, affords instances of a kind of causality elsewhere not to be found in nature. The two views are …irreconcilable.”

Therefore, which view is correct has to be decided but direct evidence to decide the issues is inaccessible, since it is not possible to travel backward in time to the conditions that preceded creation of universe. Therefore, one has to rely upon the other two properties of truth i.e. rationality and plausibility to determine and test the truth.

For any particle to keep existence, several mandatory conditions have to be satisfied all the time. There are inherent contradictions among these mandatory conditions which need to be kept resolved all the time through appropriate tools, techniques, controls, mechanisms etc. (Existential dilemma). Hence, for existence of any particle pre-existence of appropriate tools, techniques, controls, mechanisms etc. has to necessarily precede its origin/creation.

Therefore, if we assume for the sake of discussion only that physical universe began with origin of photons, being the simplest of particles, then we find that even photons in order to keep their existence needed to conserve their energy against the tendency to energy flow in accordance with 2^nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore creation of appropriate mechanism i.e. oscillating electromagnetic field and time lag to onset of entropy had to necessarily precede origin of photons. This raises a question about the agent responsible for origin of these mechanisms. The agent responsible for creation of these mechanisms can only be consciousness or is consciousness.

This view is plausible in its essence without exception with the entire evolutionary progress of physical and biological universe. It is not being detailed further herein for the sake of brevity. In short consciousness is an original property of the world endowed with capacity for apprehending the world, which is capable of resolving existential dilemma. However as the consciousness has evolved, so has the physical world. Therefore elevation of consciousness is the common thread to the evolutionary history of the world.

Summarizing all above, consciousness had to precede origin/creation of physical universe, is embedded in its material creations and has evolved to the level of human mind in order to explicitly realize itself.

Consciousness, since origin of universe up to evolution of man has proceeded subconsciously or without self awareness as hidden conditions behind things and events and has been described as involuntarily consciousness, since its bearer has no control over its activities but in man it has evolved to the level of awareness or voluntary consciousness permitting not only self realization but also apprehension of the world and individual control. Therefore, it can be readily seen that in universe Involuntary Consciousness has played a much bigger role then Voluntary Consciousness. Even Sachin Tendulkar can not explicitly calculate before hitting a ball, it has to be in his subconscious.

 Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. Consciousness is one of the aspects of and had to precede origin of universe.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Why God Particle Demonstration is a Flop Show?

Why God Particle Demonstration is a Flop Show?

Cover Page

Summary: God Particle has been regarded by Physicists as the key to unsolved mysteries of universe. However, this is merely a flight of fantasy since neither its existence can ever be demonstrated, under stipulated experimental conditions nor God Particle would provide final answer to unresolved natural mysteries.

Higgs Boson later renamed as God Particle by Leon M. Lederman in 1993 was speculated for the first time in 1962 by Philip Warren Anderson on the basis of mathematical-logical derivation having roots in the then contemporary beliefs of Physicists. It was further speculated that once existence of God Particle, even if transient, is experimentally proved, then it shall be possible to explain entire cosmic phenomena on its basis right from origin of universe up to evolution of man and even thereafter.

Therefore, it was not surprising that a large number of Physicists got down to the task of speculating the experimental conditions under which transiently existent God Particles can be demonstrated. A group of Physicists visualized that if in a linear accelerator, Hydrogen Particles are accelerated to the velocity of light, it should be possible to demonstrate existence of God Particle. Hence at CERN, Large Hadron Collider experiment was conceived and implemented.

Scientists at CERN built world’s largest linear particle accelerator 27 kilometers long, 175 meters below the surface of earth across Franco- Swiss border at Geneva. After spending huge amount of time and money the experiment was commissioned on 10^th September, 2008 and the world waited anxiously for the final announcement affirming existence of God Particle. However even after nearly 4 years, there are only assurances and final announcement is still awaited.

Large Hadron Collider experiment was doomed to failure at inception because the entire concept of God Particle and the experiment itself suffer from many infirmities, some of which are as under:-

1.     God as defined by the author in his book can’t have a particulate character. Therefore’ there does not arise any question of existence of God Particle.

2.     Existential dilemma versus Transient Particles: The key issue in nature since its origin has been effective resolution of existential dilemma all the time with in the interior of all stable particles. Existential dilemma has been inherent in this universe due to conflicts among conditions which a particle has to satisfy all the time to keep its existence. Therefore demonstration of transient God Particles can’t be of much help in resolving fundamental mysteries of nature. Hence, it is impossible that cosmic phenomena can be understood and explained comprehensively on the basis of God Particle. A transient particle at the most reflects process of transformation and is useful to this extent only, in understanding nature. Theoretically speaking, there can be any number of transient particles in this universe.

3.     Inability to complete the experiment: It is theoretically impossible to accelerate Hydrogen atoms to the velocity of light. As per Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, this is bound to be associated with infinite increase in mass requiring infinite energy and this clearly being totally unmanageable and hence impossible(This is without prejudice to author’s doubts regarding this theory). In a nuclear fusion reactor when Hydrogen atoms are accelerated to a velocity of 750 KM/sec, nuclear fusion occurs and Helium is formed. Therefore, accelerating Hydrogen atoms to velocity of light (3,00,000 KM/sec) is clearly farfetched. This must precisely be the reason for appearance of Helium in the tunnel contrary to claims of scientists at CERN that Helium leaked in to the tunnel.

4.     Demonstration of God Particles, even if under some extraordinary conditions will still leave a question to be answered. How nature secured the experimental conditions without human intervention shall still remain a mystery demanding satisfactory reply.

5.     Physicists, with the best of their efforts and with the help of entities like God Particles, one day may be able to explain Physical and Chemical phenomena as regrouping of variable sums of matter and energy but shall never be able to explain Biological phenomena and resolution of existential dilemma, both of which demand purposeful action not in terms of Natural Laws but in terms of goals and objectives. Therefore, Physicists are inherently incapable of providing comprehensive explanation of this world.

Therefore, human imagination venturing in to God Particle is merely a flight of fantasy or a myth of scientific origin and therefore experiments carried out to demonstrate existence of God Particle were predestined to be a flop show, leave apart God Particle providing comprehensive explanation of nature, universe and this world.     

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – Asynthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientificallyvalid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin ofnature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The bookincludes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences ascorollaries to the concept of God.

Visit: http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Why do We Need to Understand God?

Why do we need to understand God?

Cover Page

            Einstein in his address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939 commented about religion that religion lays down clear fundamental ends and valuations and sets them fast in emotional life of an individual and thus in social life of man. The only justification for these fundamental ends is that they exist in all healthy societies as powerful traditions, and it is not necessary to find justification for their existence.

            Further, Einstein in a symposium – Science, Philosophy and Religion at New York 1941 stated:-

                        “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”

                        “What is still lacking here is a connection of profound generality but not knowledge of order itself”

            Our current scientific understanding does not allow us to understand several aspects of nature, universe and human life which include the following amongst other:-

a)     Origin and evolution of nature and universe – The most popular Big Bang theory and its deductions leave many questions unanswered such as What is dense matter?, What is the source of dense matter?, How chaos before Big Bang could have led to order after Big Bang?, Whether origin and evolution is a singular or a perpetual act?

b)    Origin of survival mechanisms essential for existence of any particle, whether of energy or mass or both. Mandatory conditions for existence of any particle have inherent contradictions among them which need to be resolved to allow the given particle to exist over a period of time.

c)     Rational determination of acceptable human conduct.

d)    Rational basis of emotional life. Our emotions are protective reflexes that allow us to care not only for ourselves but also others and thus keep our relations to our social milieu in accordance with Sherrington’s concept of Projiscience i.e. action at a distance.

e)     Rational basis of all morals and ethics.

f)      Rational basis of Law.

g)     Rational basis of all religious principles, practices and to differentiate wheat from chaff.

h)    Rational determination of acceptable human conduct, aspirations and judgment.

i)        Rational differentiation of right from wrong, fair from unfair and just from unjust.

j)       Appreciation of constraints to existence of any particle and mechanisms to circumvent the same.

k)     Rational foundations to social sciences.

l)       Whether economy should be left to greed and phobias of the state or rich and mighty, or needs to be prudently and pragmatically managed in the interest of social justice.

m)  Whatever an individual might think or say or claim, but the unavoidable reality is that any individual survives only in a system. Our current scientific understanding does not allow rational comprehension of ourselves, the system that we live in and our cosmic connections. Therefore, though we all love our freedom, we are unable to appreciate it correctly and instead practice all kinds of aberrant behavior. Therefore we need to understand God to rationally appreciate our freedom and enjoy the same correctly.

n)    And others.

          If by God, one means connections of profound generality, that must have preceded origin of nature and material universe, are valid across the entire natural hierarchy and are still as active as they must have been in the past, then these connections of profound generality must effectively and perpetually be applicable to various aspects of human life.

          One day a priest was narrating as to how a particular disciple is spending tons of money to appease the Gods.

          I listened to him for a while and then raised a query “How to find out that the purpose of the disciple was met through his own efforts or by appeasement of Gods?”

          This infuriated the priest and he began criticizing me for my beliefs.

          In reply I raised another query “Can you tell me in just one word what religion is?”

          This drew a blank.

          I broke the silence and told him that HARMONY is one word that sums up all religions.

          I further explained that all religious principles and practices have their origin in Law of Harmony – intuitively or otherwise. Law of Harmony states that all laws have to be harmoniously construed and as a corollary one must seek greatest harmony in one’s dealings with the world at large. This Law of Harmony has its roots in universal instinct to exist and universal instincts are one of the three aspects of God.

          Understanding God as the one word symbolizing connections of profound generality is essential because current scientific understanding only provides the means and not the ends to which means are applied and current religious understanding provides the ends but only as Gospel truth which one has to dogmatically follow.

          Therefore, to understand God means understanding connections of profound generality and this is essential for our own enlightenment and elevation of consciousness leading to an intelligent, prudent and pragmatic living providing body, mind and soul harmony to the individual on one hand and harmonious relations with the world at large on the other. Therefore understanding God is essential for optimized management of wide and varied aspects of human existence.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God.

Visit: http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Who Needs an External God?

Who needs an external God?

Cover Page

It has been often argued that there must exist an external God i.e. God external to nature and universe to account for creation/origin, evolution and management of nature and universe. Almost all religions advocate existence of external God which has been described as omnipresent and omnipotent but which is not amenable to sensory perception. It is further stated by almost all religions that the said external God is a matter of experience, feeling, faith and belief and realizing the same would lead one to a state of eternal bliss. It is also said that one is unable to experience that external God only because of one’s inexperience and lack of devotion. This external God is regarded as the ultimate cause and explanation for all natural phenomena that are otherwise inexplicable.

However, if there existed an omnipotent God capable of doing anything and everything, then why should it be constrained in creation by time, place, natural laws, material resources etc. Why there are only 2 million known species of plants and animals on earth and why not all the biodiversity that human mind can imagine can actually be seen. Why an omnipotent external God needs to be bound by its own creations i.e.  natural laws, order of natural origins/creations and properties of various components of nature and universe. Why should this external God opt for natural hierarchy and be dependent upon history in order to express its creativity. Why should that external God create its own rival i.e. man. Why does an external omnipotent God need to establish natural order.  An omnipotent external God could have easily managed its ends without trappings of an order.  Why and how an unconstrained, omnipotent, external God need to and establish universality of communication, co-operation and interaction among its creations. For example for viruses to cause various illnesses, they should be able to interact with genome of their host. How an external God would be able to manage its affairs at all times and at all places. How would one explain relationships, particularly biological relationships such as symbiosis, commensalism, parasitism etc. in a universe created by an external God.

Perception of a natural order induce one to think of an omnipotent external God as the source of the perceived order. But existence of a natural order in itself is antithetical to existence of an omnipotent external God, since there is no reason that such an external God would admit any constraints to its own activities imposed by natural order. So to explain natural order in terms of an external God is self contradictory and absurd.

The universe created by an external God would be quite unlike the universe we see today. It would be more like a universe created by a software engineer devoid of universality of communication and interaction, plagued by compatibility issues and can’t be self evolving and self-healing. For each and every difficulty one would have to rush to the software engineer for effective resolution.

A universe created by an external God can’t be self-evolving, self-organizing, self-managing and self-sustaining. Relationships would be meaningless in such a universe.

Therefore, there can only be an embedded God that expresses itself through its material creations as some of the properties of its creations, is omnipresent but is not omnipotent since it has to provide room to its creations for their self expression. Therefore this embedded God is constrained by natural laws and natural order, yet exercises influences that prevail over the rest. Only an embedded God can explain universality of communication, interaction, co-operation, relationships. Such an embedded God is bound by its own rules/natural laws, so does not derogate its laws but supersedes them by acquisition of higher functions materially expressing as higher formations and this is how evolution proceeds. Only an embedded God contained within its own creations can explain this self-evolving, self-organizing, self-managing and self-sustaining universe.

This God, internal to nature need not have any physical form but its presence can be felt in pursuit of the first cause. This embedded God need not be and is not omnipotent, is rather constrained in its creativity in various ways which includes determination of realizable potentialities and selection thereof.

Therefore, to understand cosmic phenomena, we do not need an external omnipotent God. Rather we need an embedded God that is constrained ab initio and that must have preceded creation of nature and universe, is valid across the natural hierarchy and is as effective today as in the past.  

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God.

www.sciencensgod.com/clipboard.htm

Visit: http://www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Natural Limitations in Mathematics

Cover Page

Natural Limitations of Mathematics

Summary: It is commonly believed by the Learned that mathematical evidence in support of any subject matter is the final proof of the subject matter. However, it is not so. Interpretation of mathematical evidence is determined, not only by mathematical tools and techniques but also by applicable natural laws, nature of interacting entities and context of interaction.

Scientists, particularly Physicists and others regard Mathematics as the final proof of anything. It is commonly held that once a proposition is able to find some mathematical argument in its support, it is deemed proved and settled for good. Physicists have even invented the term “Mathematico-logical derivation and elevated it to the level of gospel truth. The current cosmic view held by Physicists is a glaring example of where mathematico-logical derivation can lead to, if applied in interpretation of natural events, without due consideration of natural limitations of Mathematics. The current cosmic view in Physics has its origin in two fundamental hypothesis of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, mathematically logically extrapolated to a theory of entire cosmos, directed towards reconciliation with quantum physics. As a result of unrestrained mathematico-logical derivation, the Physicist’s cosmic view has landed in to a cosmos which is beyond sensory perception and is therefore just not there. Strings of the string theory and M-Theory are beyond sensory perception – direct or indirect. These efforts have led to theoretical models which are quite similar to Ptolemy’s Model of Planetary System and Phlogiston Theory of Combustion.

This leads us to the question of natural limitations of Mathematics in understanding natural events, things and the cosmos as a whole.

1)     Mathematics is not all real: For example Complex numbers and Boolean algebra are not grounded in natural events. These can be best regarded as mathematical fantasies, may be useful as tools and techniques in certain situations.

           I once met Professor O. P. Mishra (Now retd.) of Department of Physics. He claimed that by application of Schwartz Distribution Principle through dedicated software to the available data, it would be possible to predict incidence of earth quakes. He cited the reason for his belief that earth quakes can’t be predicted on the basis of available data only because of inaccuracy of available data which can be rectified by applying Schwartz Distribution Principle and thereafter accurate prediction of incidence of earth quakes can be made.

          However, I found it farfetched and beyond comprehension. Mathematics is not like a magician’s hat that can apparently produce things out of nothing. Until and unless, one clearly knows what data is to be collected and how the relevant data is to be interpreted, how mere application of a mathematical tool or technique can ever lead to prediction of a natural event is clearly beyond comprehension.  

          Finally, these virtual components of Mathematics are relevant only as tools and techniques so far as they lead to results compatible with real world. If it is otherwise, then their use is clearly unwarranted.

2)    Nature is hierarchically organized and rules vary from one hierarchical level to another. Rules applicable to cosmic dust may not be the same as rules applicable to celestial bodies such as planets, stars etc. Therefore, unlimited mathematical extrapolation can’t be correct and proper. For example, by supplying heat to a block of ice, it is possible to convert it in to a liquid and then vaporize it to water vapor. But rules applicable to solid, liquid and gaseous state of matter vary and hence mathematical computation applicable to water in solid state can’t be valid when applied to water in liquid state and so on so forth. Natural events often involve change of state and change of phase with commensurate changes in applicable rules. Hence unlimited mathematico-logical extrapolations are wholly unwarranted until and unless it is shown that rules being so applied are valid across change of hierarchical level, change of phase, change of state etc. 

3)    Nature is not mathematico-logically perfect: Nature abounds in non-linearties. All acts of natural origin and creation are nonlinear in character. All phase changes and change of state are nonlinear in character. Some of these nonlinear acts are recognized as singularities by Physicists. A singularity in Physics means a strange point since Physicists fail to apply Laws of Physics across a singularity.

          No unconstrained mathematico-logical extrapolation can be valid across a nonlinear act. All these nonlinear acts are empirically determinate but at the present level of human understanding are rationally indeterminate. For example decay of Uranium in to lead is an empirically certain event but its occurrence can’t be predicted on the basis properties of Uranium and known laws of Physics.

Therefore, we have to be guided by Nature in application of mathematical tools and techniques towards interpretation of natural events. Application of mathematical tools and techniques is valid only so far as it corresponds to observations/ experimental results/ experience.

Notwithstanding the above said, mathematical tools and techniques are quite useful in discovering hidden conditions underlying things and events. Mathematical reconciliation of observed data indicates adequate and fair understanding of the given subject matter.

Hence in the book “Encounter of Science With Philosophy – A Synthetic View” Mathematics has been defined as science and art of computation of natural events. 

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This article points out limitations of mathematics as determinant of natural events.

Visit:  http//www.sciencengod.com

            http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Whether God is a Fact or Fiction?

Whether God is a fact or fiction?

The subject of God has intrigued mankind since times immemorial. For the majority, it is a matter of personal faith and belief or feelings and therefore it has also been often said that every human being has a personal God which is beyond enquiry and investigation. Personal God of one human being can not be compared with personal God of another. God being a matter of faith and belief, any critical analysis is totally unwarranted. Therefore Hindus recognize 330 million Gods and Goddesses. On a website I found more than 1600 views about what is God, none verified or proved.

At the same time it is also said that God is one and various recognized Gods and Goddesses are merely reincarnations of the one and only God. Irreconcilable differences between various forms of God are totally ignored. Critical analysis is forbidden and understanding or realization of God becomes a matter of personal experience elevated to the level of a divine or out of this world experience. Those who are unable to acknowledge realization of God are declared ignorant by those who claim to have realized God leaving them even more confused. There is literally no test to verify claims of the claimants. To atheists, there claims are in a state of eternal doubt and an eternal debate between atheists and believers continues without any effective resolution. I have come across believers who even though do not claim to have yet realized God, argue that subject matter of God should not be made a matter of scientific investigation and enquiry. They just want to drift in a divine current.

So there arises a question as to what is the necessity of believing or feeling existence of God and is there a compulsion of scientifically acknowledged facts and logic that leads us not only to postulate existence of God but also define it? Such a God shall be amenable to verification and therefore shall be a universally acknowledged truth.

There arises another question whether or not natural phenomenon can be sufficiently explained on the basis of our understanding of time, space, matter, and energy; and laws of physics, chemistry and biology.

In this endeavor, be guided by the following two principles:-

1)    Let nature be my only teacher and guide.

2)    C.L.Morgan’s cannon:-

      “In no case is animal activity to be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of higher psychical faculty, if it can be fairly interpreted as the outcome of his exercise of one which stands lower in psychological scale”

      Explanation: In any complex situation there would exist a hierarchy of plausible natural explanations to explain a natural phenomenon such as death can be explained as caused by a disease or wish of destiny etc. In this hierarchy of explanations material or physical stands at the lowest rung and metaphysical or transcendental at the highest provided transcendental explanations are natural and not supernatural. In any given hierarchy of plausible explanations if a natural phenomenon can be sufficiently explained at physical level, than metaphysical explanations should not be invoked and so on and so forth.

      In nature, several phenomenon such as creation of universe, origin of life, origin of mechanisms essential for existence of even the simplest of particles such as photons, origin of mechanisms enabling perpetual compliance of laws of conservation of mass, momentum and energy by all the stable particles all the time over ruling inherent contradictions to enable survival are beyond any material explanation so far.

      Even evolution of universe and biological evolution are beyond materialistic explanations. Much of the nature’s diversity is beyond physical explanations.

      Something had to precede creation of material universe. At present one has to invoke metaphysical explanations to explain the above stated natural phenomenon. What preceded all origins and creations may be collectively referred to as metaphysical influences or transcendental influences or God. In fact name doesn’t matter so long as it refers to the same reality. You can choose your own name for this aspect of reality.

      Therefore, until such time that we are able to find suitable material explanations for these phenomena, existence of God or metaphysical influences or transcendental influences can’t be ruled out.

Hence, God can only be a fact and not fiction until and unless proved otherwise.

www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Author:   Dr Mahesh C. Jain – he is practicing medicine and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view” The book begins from a scientifically valid concept of God and from this humble beginning embraces the entire cosmic phenomena within its fold.

Visit: http://www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm 

36 Objections to Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Cover Page

36 Objections to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

           Einstein based his theory on two hypotheses which he referred to as fundamental hypotheses. The first hypothesis says that optical phenomena are independent of the conditions in which they occur and the second hypothesis is about constancy of velocity of light. Both the hypotheses are unverified, irrational and implausible as the most valid generalized explanation of nature and its phenomenon. Einstein has no where given reasons in support of his claims about the two fundamental hypotheses as being the most valid generalized explanations of nature.

            In year 1919 Sir Arthur Eddington of Royal Astronomical Society experimentally demonstrated mathematically precise gravitational deflection of light – A fact predicted by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. On the basis of this single piece of evidence, the entire theory came to be accepted as the most valid generalized explanation of nature without further enquiry and investigation. Soon physicists elevated it the level of Gospel truth even though they found it too difficult to understand.  All those who were in disagreement with Einstein were unable to prove their point of view.

            This theory is a glaring example of as to how at times one can reach the right conclusions for wrong reasons.

            Einstein and his followers limitlessly extrapolated the two fundamental hypotheses to Unified Field Theory and even beyond through a series of unverified, irrational and implausible turns and twists (assumptions and presumptions). For example Einstein beginning from his two fundamental hypotheses in his own style mathematically and logically deduced the equation E=∆mc² but actually advocated the famous equation E=mc² without offering any explanation as to how ∆m can be equated with m, both being entirely different physical quantities as per his own derivation. Moreover Einstein did not consider for a moment that to prove the equation E=mc², there is no need to rely upon his two fundamental hypotheses. It can be easily proved using Planck’s Law and        de Broglie’s equation.

            It is a historical fact that in the course of unlimited extrapolation of Einstein’s Theory, several physical phenomena were predicted, identified and defined, at times right predictions for wrong reasons such as mass energy equivalence, gravitational mass of photons, black holes etc. But Einstein’s Theory has led to a mythology of its own creation such as gravitational collapse of universe leading to formation of black holes which is quite implausible keeping properties of matter in view, string theory where strings are beyond human experience, space time continuum, Geodesic lines etc.

            This unlimited extrapolation of two fundamental hypotheses is totally unwarranted because nature is hierarchically organized and the applicable rules vary from one hierarchical level to another. Before anything can be accepted as the most valid generalized explanation of nature, it needs to be shown that it is valid across the entire natural hierarchy. It has never been shown that the two fundamental hypotheses are valid across the natural hierarchy.

            Again it has never been shown that Einstein’s fundamental hypotheses are valid in non-linear domain. Moreover before accepting Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as the most valid generalized explanation of nature, it needs to be shown that both the fundamental hypotheses can sufficiently explain all natural phenomena such as Consciousness, all origins, creations, evolutions, phenomena of life etc. Therefore Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does not provide comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena.

            The author in his book “ENCOUNTER OF SCIENCE WITH PHILOSOPHY – A SYNTHETIC VIEW” has listed 36 objections to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Proponents of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity are called upon to meet these objections in order to defend their faith and to continue to enjoy their faith and belief in the same.

            The fact is that physicists have, historically, misguided themselves in believing in existence of mathematic-logically perfect explanation of nature, cosmos and phenomena of life. Physicists live with the pious hope that one day they would be able to comprehensively explain nature and its phenomena and on that day physics would emerge as the most fundamental of natural sciences. So the so called singularities surprise them and three dimensional space has been extended to 20 dimensions and they talk about time machine, supergravity and gravitons- entities beyond human perception, direct or indirect.

Dr Mahesh C. Jain

            Finally, no doubt, mathematics and logic are the best tools in pursuit of understanding nature and its phenomena but they are limited in their applicability by nature of interacting entities and the context and this must always be kept in mind while using these tools.

            Author:   Dr Mahesh C. Jain – he is practicing medicine and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view” The book begins from a scientifically valid concept of God and from this humble beginning embraces the entire cosmic phenomena within its fold.

Visit: http://www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm  

Whether or not Perpetual Motion Exists?

Whether or not Perpetual Motion Exists?

Summary: Physicists have traditionally held that nothing exist perpetuum mobile. However this is contrary to observations because any particle ranging from Photons to Galaxies and even higher formations has to be perpetually mobile to keep its existence.

In my school days, I was taught that nothing stands perpetually mobile and this is in accordance with 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics. This was explained to be because the inevitable energy flow accompanying mobility is always associated with entropy. This entropy manifests in different forms in different domains such as friction, viscous drag, resistance of an electric conductor etc. It results in loss of energy and consequential loss of mobility and hence the above stated statement.

But imagine, if Earth were to lose its energy in its motion around Sun, within almost no time, gravitational pull of Sun is bound to lead to gravitational collapse of earth into Sun and hence Earth would not be able to keep its existence for more than a brief period of time. This must be true of all celestial bodies including Stars, Galaxies and even Comets and Asteroids.

If gas particles in Brownian motion were to lose their energy after each and every collision (taking place approximately @ 10⁹ per second) in compliance of Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum, soon gas particles after losing their energy would liquefy (since in a gas its kinetic energy is a measure of its temperature and lowering of temperature of a gas results in its liquefaction). Liquid particles again being in Brownian motion shall lose their energy and turn in to solids. Therefore in this universe gases and liquids will have only transient existence. But it is contrary to observations.     

Same is true of Photons. If Photons travelling along a straight line were to suffer space drag and therefore were unable to conserve their energy in their cosmic sojourn, than a change in identity and character of any Photon is inevitable.  For Photons, Planck’s law states E = hf. Therefore following loss of energy due to space drag, a change in frequency (f) is inevitable, h being a universal constant. Since identity and character of any Photon are determined by its frequency, hence the above statement. In such a situation Photons can’t keep their existence for billions of years which is normally subject only to absorption by a material particle. In that case a Photon would no longer be representative of its source and so Astrophysicists would lose scientific validity of their observations.

This is true for stable subatomic particles as well i.e. electron, proton and neutron.  This argument is equally valid for atoms, molecules and all other particles displaying Brownian motion. In case of electrons Physicists have employed such terms as rest mass, rest energy and rest charge knowing fully well that an electron is never in a state of rest in ordinary sense of the term.

Perpetual motion is a mandatory condition for existence of any particle, whether of energy or matter or both.

Any particle in motion conserves its mass, energy and momentum to the extent of its perpetual motion. Energy necessary to sustain perpetual motion is generally known as free energy of the particle. A particle in perpetual motion only, is in its basal state. Each and every particle has a tendency to return to its basal state and to conserve its basal state. A particle even at 0°K shall conserve its basal state or free energy or sustain its perpetual motion.

A particle in perpetual motion only, being devoid of any Newtonian motion is in a state of ‘Deemed Rest’ for the purpose of laws of physics since in this statDeemed Reste conservation of mass, energy and momentum is absolute. According to Newton’s 2^nd law, absolute conservation of its momentum by a particle implies no unbalanced external force acting on the particle and hence no acceleration and hence a state of ‘Deemed Rest’ – An axiomatic concept like the concept of point, line and plane in Geometry.

Perpetual motion may be linear as in case of Photons, rotatory as in case of celestial bodies, electrons, along a zig-zag path as in case of Brownian motion and oscillatory as in case of Photons and other subatomic particles, atoms, molecules etc. Therefore almost all types of regular motion can be seen in perpetually mobile particles but the exact type of perpetual motion seen is dependent upon nature of the particle.

Briefly stated any particle to keep its existence has to be perpetually mobile and this is a mandatory condition for any particle to keep its existence. Perpetual motion of Photons, stable subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, colloid particles, celestial bodies and even galaxies and higher formations can’t be refuted.

Hence perpetual motion is a material reality and Physicists have misguided themselves in believing that nothing exist perpetuum mobile. 

   Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. It is pertinent to mention that the book contains a chapter devoted to the concept of ‘Rest’ in Physics.

Visit: http://www.sciencengod.com

Cover Page

Dr Mahesh C. Jain

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm