कार्यकारणवाद एवं अध्यास। ON CAUSALITY AND PARADOXES. Basudeba Mishra
यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः।
अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ॥
(yasyāmataṁ tasya mataṁ mataṁ yasya na veda saḥ.
avijñātaṁ vijānatāṁ vijñātamavijānatām). Kenopanishad (2-3).
He who denies something, really concurs with It. He who agrees, really is refuting it. Those who do not discern it, know It. Those who discern It, know It not. (If one says I don’t believe in God, he really believes in something called God, but only disputes the description. Had there been no God, the very concept would not have come to his mind in the first place. Those who believe, can’t describe God). It has the roots in a dialogue between Indra and Bharadwaaja contained in Taittireeya Braahmanam – 3-10-11, where Indra says: अनन्ता वै वेदाः – the knowable objects are infinite.
Science is all about knowing – processing information – about the intrinsic nature of some being – about its existence (physics), functions (chemical properties) and evolution (interactive potential). It is different from knowledge, which is based on memory of past encounter with external impulses (स्मृतिपूर्वामुभूतार्थविषयं ज्ञानमुच्यते).
A paradox is some seemingly contradictory outcome than the everyday experience. Since an observer records the state of something at time t’ only after it had happened at t, he or she or it can’t affect the state that existed in the past (all operations are carried out at here-now). Observer created reality is a myth. Nature strictly follows its rule of causality. If there is an exception, it implies additional factors affecting the outcome differently. The “cause” is a collective term of 13 different factors that are immediately antecedent and induce action in a mechanical process. Knowledge of all causal factors may not be possible for all in all situations. Thus, it is necessary to apply our mind to find out the reasons of the seemingly contradictory outcome (समन्वय) to harmonize the effect with the cause (अविरोध). Thus, a paradox is not an intellectual riddle, but is an incomplete presentation.
Thus, a paradox is not an intellectual riddle, but is an incomplete presentation.
Basudeba Mishra
However, modern science is based on superstitiously believing in “established theories” without defining each term precisely and understanding the process logically. The “scientists” build theories based on such shifting base with the help from fictions, which mislead everyone. Mostly they are searching blindfolded in a dark room for a black cat that is not there. This is sheer wastage of public money. For example, LHC collects so much data that it is impossible to store and analyze everything. Hence they filter out 99% of the data. But this filtration is based on their belief of what is essential. That belief may not be correct and most essential information might have been filtered out misleading about the outcome.
There are no paradoxes, but only misunderstandings. It begins with seemingly unquestionable premises, but omits certain key parameters to mislead and arrive at conclusions, which are highly questionable and counterintuitive. Zeno’s or the other so-called Paradoxes are mere play with words or information by appearing to show substantial, but hiding the vital information. Take the bootstrap paradox. It is the idea that we develop on the past theories based on present observation and experiment to arrive at future theories. Suppose the future theories contradict or sufficiently modify the past theories, what will be its effect? This is logical reasoning. But it has been unnecessarily sensationalized by introducing fictional twists and turns like a time traveler.
Consider an event A at time t, that leads to B at t’, which leads to C at t”. What if a time traveler brings the information of C to A travelling backwards in time, so that the vary cause is influenced (like in the grandfather paradox, where a person goes into the past to kill his grandfather, so that his mother will not be born. Then wherefrom he came?). It is said that in this process, the effect induces the cause to change the outcome that should happen in the normal process. It violates the second law of thermodynamics (in spontaneous evolution, entropy of isolated systems will remain constant or increase, but can’t decrease). Even if negative-entropy is accepted (entropy decreasing while time travels backwards), problem still remains about the origin of the process (in this hotchpotch, which is the starting point). It also challenges the concept of freewill and determinism (C exists in A in the potential form, implying everything is predetermined). This is sheer misunderstanding of the process and distortion of facts.
Space, Time and Time Travel
Let us first analyze what time is and whether time travel is possible. Both space and time are non-physical mental constructs (बुद्धिनिर्माण) that arise from our concepts of sequence (क्रम) and interval (परत्वापरत्व). When the interval between two objects from a reference frame is compared, one is found nearer or far than the other. Such interval is called space. Similarly, when the interval between two events (evolutionary processes) from now or a reference frame is compared, one is found earlier or later than the other. Such interval is called time. We use special markers to describe something. Since intervals (अन्तराल) have no markers to describe them (स्वरूपलक्षण), we describe space (देश) and time (काल) by using alternative symbolism (विकल्पन) of the boundary objects or events (तटस्थलक्षण – like from point A to point B or from morning to evening). There is no fixed rule about direction (दिक्) here.
Measuring time
For space and time measurement, we use fairly repetitive and easily intelligible objects and events – like hand or feet and from one sunrise to the next – and subdivide or multiply it to arrive at the unit. The so-called atomic time is not independent of it, as it takes the same old second to find the synchronization of the radiation corresponding to the number of transition (9,192,631,770) between two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of caesium-133 atom. Then call that duration as a second. It is like defining the father by the son and calling son as independent of father.
From this definition, it is clear that while there is no restriction on direction for space, time must be unidirectional. It is because the first reference point must exist before the interval with the next event is considered. While space is inert, time is ever moving at a uniform rate independent of everything (Einstein confused it with light by which we perceive an event. But light is NOT the event). Hence the “next” event can come only “after” the reference event. Hence from “past” (अनुभूतिव्यञ्जक – that which has been experienced), the next event can only be in “future” (भवितव्यव्यञ्जक – that which can only be predicted), though it will be perceived only at present (स्वव्यापारारूढ – that which is in operation). This is everyday experience. Since there is no proof that this order is violated, time travel is not possible.
(Contd.)