|
Tom Chavez
Al, I appreciate your observations and particularly your conclusion about the importance of love and dong good to others. Well expressed from the heartfelt platform. I'm more down here on the dry intellectual platform looking up at you with admiration.
Gregg, your philosophy seems to start with statements, which you call ‘axiums’, “Existence exists” and “Existence is eternal.” In mathematics the word used is axiom, which I assume is what you mean by axium.
If by Existence you mean “all which exists’, then your first axiom is true by definition and is really a tautology, “all which exists, exists.” Your second statement, “Existence is eternal” is an actual axiom, in my opinion, because it says something more about existence than the mere tautological fact that existence exists.
I have a similar approach, except instead of calling it ‘Existence’, I call it ‘Reality.’ And I also have a similar statement, “Reality is eternal,’ but I don’t take that as an axiom.
I use logic, by applying a different axiom, which I call the axiom of rationality: “Reality is rational,” meaning that reality or existence follows laws of cause and effect. This is an assumption, based on our experience of causes and effects in the material world. From this axiom of rationality I derive your statement that Existence is eternal, as follows.
If Existence were not eternal, then it had a beginning before which nothing existed. In that case, we have to say that Existence came from nothing. This is not logical. A cause should be sufficient to explain an effect of which it is the cause. Nothing is not a sufficient cause for Existence. Therefore, existence has no beginning and is eternal.
The axiom “Existence is rational” logically implies “Existence is eternal” as a corollary.
However, according to quantum mechanics, some aspects of existence are random, like decay of a radioactive particle. Randomness implies there is no cause or, at least, that the cause is inaccessible to us, even theoretically.
In fact, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem imply that our scientific knowledge about the material world is always inexact and incomplete.
Moreover, empirical induction, or reasoning from observation of experiment results and natural phenomena, cannot give fully reliable conclusions because our observations are also incomplete.
After examining many swans we may conclude that “all swans are white.” Since we have not seen all swans, our conclusion is tentative, theoretical or hypothetical. Our statement that “all swans are white” is really just a reasonable assumption. In fact, there are black swans, we just never saw them.
Scientists theoretically accept that all scientific conclusions are tentative, although they often act as if scientific theories or laws are absolute dogma not to be doubted.
My conclusion is that the empirical inductive nature of science is defective and unable to give reliable absolute truth about Existence. Logic and science are useful but fallible tools for obtaining knowledge.
Are we doomed to ignorance? Or is there another method of obtaining knowledge?
Vedic philosophy calls the inductive empirical method of modern material science the “ascending method.” Gradually we build up our knowledge base by adding more and more knowledge. But, no matter how far we go, this method only gives incomplete and inexact knowledge.
Aside from the ascending method, there is a “descending method” of obtaining knowledge, from higher sources or authorities not subject to the limitations of human intelligence.
For example, the mathematician Gauss, the chemist Kekulé, and the composer Mozart all described experiences in dream, revelation or inspiration in which wonderful information or music was presented to their consciousness, as if it were a gift out of the blue, without the normal logical or intellectual effort.
In Vedic philosophy there are techniques for purification of consciousness with the purposeful aim of connecting with sources of inspiration and revelation. This kind of “descending” method is complementary to the inductive ascending method.
The descending method obtains or derives knowledge from higher aspects of existence which may not normally be perceived or recognized by persons with undeveloped consciousness and intelligence, including paranormal and transcendental aspects.
Finally, we should recognize that we can never fully understand the Absolute Truth because it is infinite and inconceivable. The can be illustrated by logic, using the method of redutio ad absurdam.
The redutio ad absurdam method assumes what we want to disprove, and then shows that this assumption leads to a contradiction. It was used, for example, by Cantor to show that the infinity of natural numbers is smaller than the infinity of the real numbers.
Let’s assume that we can collect all true statements about Existence into one (very large) book, the Book of All True Statements. Now, consider the statement: “This is a true statement which is not in the Book of All True Statements.”
The Absolute Truth is inconceivable and unlimited. Yet, the ultimate object of all knowledge and science is to understand the Absolute Truth. The more we understand, the more we realize how little we know. Or as Isaac Newton put it, “What we understand is a drop, what we don’t know is the ocean.”
|
