[bt_section][bt_row][bt_column width=”1/1″][bt_text]
Another confounding dilemma that arises from previous discussions is this: If we see shadows and cross sections of entities in higher dimensions, how do we distinguish between the ‘real’ and ‘reflection’ in our ordinary world?
What if I were to tell you religion and science are both illusions, mere reflections of another hidden reality?
How do we know what we are looking at is a fundamental phenomenon or an emergent one?
What if human life is an emergent event of some deeper fundamentals at play?
How do we distinguish the central happenings from the incidental ones?
Modern science tells us that all mental phenomena; logic, creativity, art, emotions and intuition arise simply from varied interactions of the neurons in our brain. So neural connections and synapses are the central phenomena, while all these functions are incidental. If that is true, why is there so much unexplained in mind mechanics yet? Could we be confusing between the central and incidental phenomena, do we have it upside down?
Among many other things, what if scientists have the theory of evolution upside down? What if i say survival of the fittest is not the central impetus for evolution, but merely incidental?
The current state of Science is such that it gives fractured, unconnected views of existence. Just like what the flat-landers may do by studying different cross sections of the one 3D entity. We have created many contra distinct areas of scientific enquiry, but none of them offer exhaustive explanations.
[/bt_text][bt_text]
Is science doing that, studying varying shapes of the one higher dimensional entity, creating many false sciences?
Maybe we are not focusing on the fundamental phenomena but only on the emergent reflections, trying to piece together a fractured, unconnected entity of existence. Like the cognitively limited 2D flat-landers would do.
You see, if our cognitive limits do not reveal complete truths to us, then our descriptions and studies of reality can never be complete not true. No?
[/bt_text][bt_hr top_spaced=”not-spaced” bottom_spaced=”not-spaced” transparent_border=”noBorder” icon=”” icon_type=”btIcoDefaultType” icon_color=”btIcoDefaultColor” icon_size=”btIcoSmallSize” el_class=”” el_style=””][/bt_hr][bt_text]
Are We Asking The Correct Questions ?
Let us say you are watching a football game. What is the best way to describe the event that is occurring? With Newton’s laws? With Quantum Mechanical laws? Will these descriptions capture why the game is happening? Or why people are watching it?
Which question should one ask to receive the most useful, most comprehensive answers?
In other words, which question is superior and should have explanatory precedence?
Definitely the one which gives answers at many levels, from which many other explanations emerge naturally, as ancillaries. In science at least, and that is the way it should be, robust theories are those that can give answers and explanations far beyond their origin or expected scope. A robust theory has universal applicability in many fields and fits in smugly in a lot of places, like missing parts of a crossword puzzle. For example, even though string theory cannot be proved, its usability in other fields is so high that it still has life. Another robust theory was that of electromagnetism, which tied together many disparate phenomena and ideas.
So then, must we not have a description of reality which TIES together all aspects of existence? A framework from which all other frameworks emerge as ancillaries?
A central idea from which all other ideas pop out? All others being CORRECT, but INCIDENTAL.
[/bt_text][bt_text]
Then the most important problem in science and life becomes “What are the correct questions to ask?”
Maybe we are not asking the right questions at all. And that could be because of our limited cognition.
[/bt_text][bt_hr top_spaced=”not-spaced” bottom_spaced=”not-spaced” transparent_border=”noBorder” icon=”” icon_type=”btIcoDefaultType” icon_color=”btIcoDefaultColor” icon_size=”btIcoSmallSize” el_class=”” el_style=””][/bt_hr][bt_text]
Cognitive Upgrade : The only way forward
In the book ‘Flatland’, the square upgrades its cognition to the third dimension and convinces the sphere, its teacher from the three-dimensional world, that more dimensions- the fourth, fifth, sixth and so on could exist. Could we not, like the square, undergo cognitive upgradation to ‘see’ higher dimensions that might exist? They exist, as state-of-the art physics claims, so the idea is not ridiculous.
Why not?
New senses, a cognitive upgrade. Could that be possible?
Maybe.
Whenever any great advances in science have come about, a quantum leap in perception has turned the tables on prevailing truths. Albert Einstein was an outsider, one of a few such, who broke out of the shackles of regimented, formalised thought. The unlikely clerk at a Swiss patent office ushered in, with disruptive aplomb, a new era of science. He brought about an ontological upgrade, an expansion of reality, of the kind and number of things in existence. He reinvented ; unclothed and then freshly dressed up our old conceptions of gravity and time.
Gravity is now not only the force of attraction between two objects anymore, it is the curving of the space -time because of mass.
Time is not fixed as we had perceived, but is relative to speed and mass.
How did he come to these conclusions? Not with established ideas and experimentation methods, no. The truth of his claims about objects bending space around them, producing ‘gravity’, was validated many decades after he had first made them.
Einstein proved that there could be a reality higher than that of Newtonian mechanics.If the established empirical system was the only way of doing science, how did he do it? How had he ‘known’?
This could have been a leap of cognition defined as ‘Viveka Khyati’ or ‘Intuitive Intellection’, in the Yogic language of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. This intuitive intellection does not arise from ordinary cognition, it is supra/ ultra-cognitive.
Not all of us are scientists, but that need not deter us from asking these questions:
If there are deeper fundamental realities, is established science the best way to discover them? The only way?
Can there be an alternate approach, an alternate scientific model?
Could there be alternate modes of experimentation? Of seeing , of knowing?
Also, could our cognitive apparatus undergo an upgrade to perceive reality more comprehensively ? To be able to ask more relevant , meaningful questions .
[/bt_text][/bt_column][/bt_row][/bt_section]