Mathematics is ultimately based upon bits of simple assumptions drawn from our everyday experiences and common sense.
For example we believe that
1<2<3<4…….
1+1=2, 2+1=3
1+0=1, 1×1=1
x+x=2x etc
The above assumptions are purely based upon our common sense and logic from our everyday experiences and do not have any ‘deeper’ supporting maths to prove them.
So, mathematics is ultimately based upon our assumptions which we believe as true in our everyday life. Then how could any mathematical model make predictions that go against our common sense and logic? How can any theory challenge its own basic pillars of foundation and still be valid?
Mathematics is just a language
Mathematics is simply a language which uses numbers and symbols to express. Despite correct grammar, a weird statement doesn’t become right just because that is expressed in Greek language or a correct logic doesn’t become weird just because one couldn’t express the same in Greek.
Similarly, just because something is expressed in terms of weird numbers and symbols, a weird expression doesn’t automatically become a fact or law. 2×5=6 is obviously a wrong statement. So a mathematical expression can’t be right if it violates logic.
And, just because a logical argument or fact is not expressed in maths, it doesn’t automatically become wrong. Facts like we the humans exist on this Earth or the Earth rotates around the Sun remain facts though we can’t express the same in the language of mathematics.
A mathematical statement to be considered as correct, it must be built upon correct logic. And that is true with any statement in any language. The language doesn’t per se decides the truthfulness of a statement. It is the underlying logic which decides whether some statement is a fact or not.
So a mathematical statement can’t be considered beyond logic and one can’t swear by maths and overthrow logic.
Just like how wrong assumptions lead to wrong statements in any language, wrong assumptions (constant speed of light, constant speed of snail etc) will lead to wrong maths. And if one believes and goes by that wrong statement, one will be forced to make further wrong predictions.
Most importantly, something that can be explained in mathematical terms can also be expressed in terms of logical statements in any language. And there isn’t any puzzle that will only ‘yield’ to mathematics but not to logic. Of course, some factual statements may be better and more conveniently expressed in mathematical terms while some may be better expressed in conventional sentences.
Go to Next Page
Go to Main Index
Comments
That is terrific, it’s what I have been suspecting all along, only I am not a mathematician: but I do have common sense and also I think according to everyday logic.
Have you talked with physical cosmologists in particular who are also into quantum mechanics, or what I might call extra extra profound physics?
Guys like Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss?
Please host a forum.
In other words, ‘weird’ mathematicians have fabricated a kind of world in their mind, and they infer from that world to the reality of everyday life and draw the conclusion that the everyday life must conform to their weird world in their mind, even though the everyday real world life does not conform to their weird mathematically inferred (in their mind) world, but they explain: it is because we do not see into the sub-atomic particle world which is the real world, while the real world accessed by us everyday is not the real world, or except only in the macro appearance — which macro appearance is not the fact — the fact is in the weird world in their mind, contrived by their weird mathematics.
But, and you must try to answer them also, they state that they have experimental evidence for the in fact world which is the sub-atomic particle world we do not see in our macro world.
Marius de Jess
mdejess@gmail.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, thanks for the great article. I loved the snail analogy. I’m not mathematically proficient enough to verify it, but logically your arguments make sense.
LikeLike
Don’t bother too much about the ‘complex’ mathematics built upon some stupid notions. It is ultimately logic which should decide the validity of complex maths.
LikeLike
wth??? you said, “Facts like we the humans exist on this Earth or the Earth rotates around the Sun remain facts though we can’t express the same in the language of mathematics.”
If I were you, I’d go all the way. Understand the earth is stationary and CONCAVE with a glass sky. Understand where the megacryometeors are coming from, this is the most important thing to disseminate. Why bother going into detail about the error in the MME if you cannot conclude there is no rotation to earth, ya goof.
LikeLike
to Argon Do
About math, I agree completely with drgsrinivas.
This is a quote of the great genius Tesla.
(btw he mocked Einstein’s theories! And rightly so!)
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)”
Need I say more? 😉
LikeLike
How I love books!
Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty:
Modern ‘mathematics’ is riddled with contradictions. Professor Morris Kline’s book entitled: Mathematics the loss of certainty clearly outlines that the idea of ‘mathematics’ as a science, makes a mockery of common sense. To quote Morris: ” It is now apparent that the concept of a universally accepted, infallible body of reasoning – the majestic mathematics of 1800 and the pride of man – is a grand illusion.”
LikeLike
You said “Facts like we the humans exist on this Earth or the Earth rotates around the Sun remain facts though we can’t express the same in the language of mathematics.”
But it’s not a fact Earth rotates around the sun; there is no proof. When scientists finally gave up trying to measure Earth’s absolute motion around the sun, THAT was what led to Relativity: since we can’t prove Earth has absolute movement, let’s say there is NO SUCH THING as absolute movement!
You’re going down the same road your mortal enemies, the Relativists, went down a century ago.
The irony.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must admit that I have never explored that subject myself and have only blindly believed in what the scientists preached. But I thought the above ‘fact’ was known to the scientists well before the Relativity came in. But anyway I admit my ignorance on this subject. As I said I haven’t explored it in depth and so I can neither challenge their claim nor do I have an alternative explanation.
But having seen how scientists could go utterly wrong, may be it is time that we shouldn’t simply believe in ‘science’ but we should re-examine every scientific claim.
Taking your view point I restate the above as “the scientific belief that earth rotates around the sun can’t be expressed in the language of mathematics”
Thanks for your feed back.
LikeLike
In our age of super telescopes and space craft, we can indeed get the proper perspective/frame of reference regarding the rotation of the planets, starting with those closer to the sun than ourselves. It’s more than a mathematical model (I grant that math alone can deceive.) At any rate, here’s a great short presentation on oft misinterpreted experiment. They got their “maths” wrong.
LikeLike
And then there is Vedic Mathematics!
(I had to put this in here, it is my hobby. 😉 )
If you start doing Vedic mathematics you start to understand how extremely stupid , awkard, and retarded,the conventional mathematics is!
(Just like the rest of ‘modern science’!)
When you are ‘doing ‘Vedic mathematics’ (VM) you use one or more of the sutra’s and can do sums and ‘difficult’ algebraic equations and more in a few seconds!
Two simple examples:
Calculate:
75 x 75=?
Well, we use the verse or sutra
“By one more than the one before”
(Ekadhikena Purvena)
Well, the ‘one before’ is of course the ‘7’ and one more is 7+1=8.
Then the sutra states ‘by’ so we multiply. ( 7 x 8) =56 and we put 25 at the end
So, 75 x 75=( 7×8) | (25)=5625.
See how easy it is!
Another example:
Calculate:
998 x 997=
We use here the sutra “By the Deficiency” (Yaavadunam )
We write it down as:
998 -2
997 -3
Because 998 is 2 from 1000, and 997 is 3 from 1000.
We multiply 2 and 3, 2×3=6
we calculate 998-3, or, 997-2=995 and we are done!
998-2
997-3
995 | (2×3)
We only have to put two 0’s in and we get:
998-2
997-3
995006
And we are done!!
And this is just for starters!
We can do arithmetic,(squaring, division, multiplying, square roots, cube roots and much more), algebra, calculus, trigonomerty, and so on and so forth:
For example:
1/(x+4) + 1/(x+3)=1/(x+2) + 1/(x+5)
Can be done in 15 seconds or less!
Try that with ‘conventional mathematics’
How is that for math!? I think that is how mathematics should be!
Now, this begs the question. Why isn’t this leaned at school!?
Were I live the government is complaining about children very, very very bad at
arithmetic. But they don’t show them Vedic Mathematics!
That is telling us something I write that here all the time.
It is all deliberate and by design to dumb us down!
Another thing is that Vedic Mathematics connect with our right brain.
Also another thing TPTSB don’t want us to do!
my two cents.
LikeLike
Galacar, thanks for that great introduction to Vedic maths!
LikeLike
To Galacar,
Wow!! I as a student, am just feeling like the way you explained so beautifully,thanks!
I am confident that, there will not be (m)any Mathematicians/Scientists who will accept to this–true– statement of yours.Sad.
Also,to add,the way in which Calculus was originally developed—which is much more easier than the “conventional” one—is really curious to look into:
Click to access Hawaii.pdf
But, the greatest of all frauds of Modern Science is,according to my understanding, Medicine; sorry, if I am wrong here.
Thank You
LikeLike
charan wrote:
“To Galacar,
Wow!! I as a student, am just feeling like the way you explained so beautifully,thanks!”
Thank you so much for your compliment! I really love doing this.
Once you start doing VM, you start to see a lot of very intelligent connections within this system.
And it is very elegant and coherent as well. But to really value it you have to experience it,
“Another thing is that Vedic Mathematics connect with our right brain
I am confident that, there will not be (m)any Mathematicians/Scientists who will accept to this–true– statement of yours.Sad.”
No, I know they don’t or won’t. It is their indoctrination.
If you look into something with your left brain, or your right brain, there is a huge difference, and I believe that
the right brain is mostly right! But is indeed closed off. Now you understand why there is ‘no money’ for music and art classes. Way too dangerous for the status quo.
Yes, sad indeed.
So much to say about this all!
“Also,to add,the way in which Calculus was originally developed—which is much more easier than the “conventional” one—is really curious to look into:”
Thank you very much! I will look into this.
“But, the greatest of all frauds of Modern Science is,according to my understanding, Medicine; sorry, if I am wrong here.
Thank You”
But I do agree. However I won’t go to deep into it here, because it is rather off topic.
But I will say this.
Please read the book. The Medical Maffia. by Ghislaine Saint-Pierre Lanctot, and you will never look at medicine with the same eyes.
And medicine has a lot of power into the media, hence you never see any alternatives for healing, but I can tell you there are plenty!
Btw this week was in the newspaper that they could use 1 drop of blood for diagnosing which cancer.
But there was a woman in 18 something who did ALL diagnoses with a drop of blood!
You see, like physics , there is nothing news under the sun.
And I will say this. how crazy it may sound, but I have found it out to be true.
‘modern medicine’ is here to kill us. slowly but surely,
But don’t believe a word I say, research for yourself.
I better stop now, otherwise I can go on for hours. I have studied a lot of hidden things for years now.
“Nothing in this world works the way we think it works, nothing!’
LikeLike
Another good piece about the misuse of mathematics in physics!
I totally agree with the conclusion in the last part, It sums it all up!
“Hestenes: Mathematics played an essential role in Einstein’s thinking, but, as
mathematical physics goes, the mathematics in all his great papers is
comparatively simple. His forte was in analyzing the physical meaning of the
mathematics. Indeed, such analysis is generally characteristic of the best work in
theoretical physics. I have heard the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, himself a
true mathematical virtuoso, express this opinion forcefully, asserting that the
value of a paper on theoretical physics is inversely proportional to the density of
mathematics in it.
Me: i.e. Einstein’s style of “mathematically naïve” has inspired physicists to be the same. And such Einstein fans as Hestenes mock “genuine” mathematicians by calling people who inspired by Einstein to write mathematical nonsense as “mathematical virtuosos”.
The Einstein fans who believe that mathematical nonsense is the way to proceed in physics serve as a block to those trying to tidy up the mess that Einstein left us. Physics is a mess, made a mess by Einstein. But since Einstein is proclaimed a genius these fans then think the mess is how physics should be.”
SECRETS OF GENIUS : Review of Imagery in Scientific Thought by Arthur I.
Miller. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986. DAVID HESTENES
New Ideas in Psychol, Vol. 8. No.2, pp, 231-246, 1990 0732-118X/9O
LikeLike
In light of the mathematical topic here, may I siggest the follwing book:
“Weapons of Math Destruction” by Cathy O’Neil
It shows how math isn’t the ‘pure’ tool as many people think it is.
LikeLike
Hello Dr Gonuguntla!
Wonderful blog.
I have some questions about math and logic that no one has been able to answer to my satisfaction. Here they are:
A right triangle with short sides measuring exactly 3 and 4 units respectively will have a long side that measures exactly 5 units. So far so good. But a right triangle with short sides each measuring exactly 1 unit will, according to the mathemagicians, have a long side that measures… well, it will have a long side that can’t be exactly measured by any means (because the square root of 2 has no known final digit). How can this be? It seems so very illogical. When I draw such triangles on paper, or cut pieces of wood to match on my miter saw, I don’t sense any essential physical differences (except overall size) between 3-4-5 triangles and 1-1-? triangles.
Frankly, it makes me suspect that there is some kind of fundamental error in the whole mathemagical model of (or approach to) reality. Perhaps Kronecker was right when he said, “The good God created the whole numbers; all else is the work of man.” But what, then, do I do with those nasty 1-1-? triangles? Should I use Minkowski’s “taxicab geometry” and “manhattan distances”? or should I spend more time wrestling with Wildberger’s “rational trigonometry” and “quadrance”? or something else?
Any insights you have would be greatly appreciated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gerry, you have very well pointed out the limitations of the mathematics of the human robots in describing the real world.
And what about the value of pi? Also Zeno’s paradox poses a similar challenge, I think.
Basically mathematics and numbers are the result of human robot’s software which is ultimately built from discrete bits of information. I think it would be too much for these ‘particulate’ minds and their discrete mathematics to be able to accurately describe the real world which is continuous and infinite!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@gerryrzeppa
Well, I mentioned the book “science for heretics” and in there is a whole
chapter on mathematics and it’s flaws.Great read, really!
you wrote:
“Frankly, it makes me suspect that there is some kind of fundamental error in the whole mathemagical model”
There not only IS, but there ARE errors
I never considered this but 1+1 is NOT equal 2
why? Because nothing in nature is the same! Nothing!
one apple and another apple is NOT two same apples!
But the whole of physics rest on this (by use of mathematics).
If all of nature is different, then why aren’t atoms not different?
Another thing is that mathematics can NEVER approach anything in nature,
the real world is way way way too complicated and complex.
Some people understand this intuitively.
And a line in mathematics is not the same as a line in nature (btw I think nature
has no ‘straight lines” at all!)
Buckminster Fuller describes this last item in his awesome, and very thick book,
https://i2.wp.com/www.brainpickings.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/synergetics.jpg?w=680&ssl=1
Man, what a genius he was! Thought at school or universities? Errrr.. No way!
Anyway I really recommend these two books! After reading them you laugh at
every mainstream statement!
And if you really want go ‘off the deep end” start reading Charles Fort’s books.
He really showed you that ‘science’ is really all nonsense.
I always have to laugh if I see all those ‘skeptics’ defending ‘science’.
One simple question, if ‘science’ bring us ‘truth’ what is there to defend?
get it?
My two cents
Galacar
LikeLike
Ok ok couldn’t resist it!
“Everything you’ve learned in school as “obvious” becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.
R. Buckminster Fuller”
And what I wrote here about ‘schooling:
“What usually happens in the educational process is that the faculties are dulled, overloaded, stuffed and paralyzed so that by the time most people are mature they have lost their innate capabilities.
R. Buckminster Fuller”
Namaste!
LikeLike
Galacar says, “I mentioned the book “science for heretics” and in there is a whole
chapter on mathematics and it’s flaws.Great read, really!”
I agree. I recently finished reading “Science for Heretics” and have been in email contact with the author over the last couple of weeks. I’m looking forward to telling him about this blog (in case he’s never seen it) when he returns from his sojourn in Egypt.
Galacar further says, quoting R. Buckminster Fuller, “Everything you’ve learned in school as ‘obvious’ becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.”
Again, I agree. In fact, I recently wrote a program that calculates real-world values for Pi in two different ways. Both methods use Bresenham’s integer-only circle-drawing algorithm on a real-world pixel display. Method (a) computes the circumference of a circle by counting the number of actual pixels drawn, while Method (b) computes the circumference as the total Manhattan distance between those same pixels. The circumferences, thus computed, are then divided by the corresponding diameters, yielding real-world values of 17/6 and 4, respectively. Note that the mathemagician’s value of 3.14159265… falls nicely between these two values — which is exactly what we’d expect since the mathemagician’s model is an approximation of the reality, at best.
A short, humorous article I wrote regarding a real-world solution to my 1-1-? triangle problem can be found here:
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/the-malevolent-mathemagician-natural-language-programming/
LikeLike
@gerryrzeppa
You have e-mail contact with him? Great! I did want to do to, because he has his e-mail in the back of his book.Anyway, tell him the book was very good, but doesn’t go far enough for me.. E.g. he never stated, and I don’t blame him, that there is nothing that came out of ‘modern physics’, nothing at all!
He will be open to that and other things I think. I love how he dares to question anything,
LikeLike
Galacar says, “…tell him [ie, Barrie Condon, author of “Science for Heretics”] the book was very good, but doesn’t go far enough for me. E.g. he never stated, and I don’t blame him, that there is nothing that came out of ‘modern physics’, nothing at all! He will be open to that and other things I think. I love how he dares to question anything.”
I think you should contact him yourself. I’m sure he’d like to hear from another kindred spirit.
I agree that nothing of use has come out of “modern physics,” but that only makes it more incumbent for “the rest of us” to demonstrate, as Dr. Gonuguntla does on this blog, that there are simpler and more fruitful ways of looking at and doing things. Bresenham’s integer-only circle drawing routine is another great example since it is both simpler and faster than the mathemagician’s technique. In other words, it’s not enough for us to point out what’s wrong with the other guy’s way of thinking; we also need to show that better, simpler, more fruitful and efficient ways exist.
LikeLike
drgsrinivas says, “…Zeno’s paradox poses a similar challenge, I think… it would be too much for these ‘particulate’ minds and their discrete mathematics to be able to accurately describe the real world which is continuous and infinite!!!”
I reply, Whoa! You’re losing me there. It’s the idea of the continuous and the infinite in mathematics that CAUSES Zeno’s paradox (ie, I can never get from here to there because I always have half the distance left to go). But discrete, whole number mathematics solves the problem. Think pixels: “here” is pixel #1 and “there” is pixel #10, so I start “here” (which is pixel #1) and I move right half of 10 (which is 5) and I’m on pixel #6; then I move right half of 5 (which is 3, rounding up), and I’m on pixel #9; then I move right half of 3 (which is 1, rounding down) and I’m “there” on pixel #10. No paradox, just pixels.
drgsrinivas asks, “And what about the value of pi? ”
I replay, I recently wrote a program that calculates real-world, discrete values for Pi in two different ways. Both methods use Bresenham’s integer-only circle-drawing algorithm on a real-world pixel display. Method (a) computes the circumference of a circle by counting the number of actual pixels drawn, while Method (b) computes the circumference as the total Manhattan distance between those same pixels. The circumferences, thus computed, are then divided by the corresponding diameters, yielding real-world values of 17/6 and 4, respectively. Note that the mathemagician’s value of 3.14159265… falls nicely between these two values — which is exactly what we’d expect since the mathemagician’s model is an approximation of the reality, at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we are talking at different levels about the ‘real world’. Yes, pixel model would help solve zeno’s paradox and also help compute the value of pi etc. But I think, real world is far from that.
For example, electrons don’t exist as one electron, two electrons etc. Everything in this world exist as a continuous phenomena. It’s just that our neurology and the software we are made of makes us feel things as discrete entities and makes us ignore that which is in-between.
Having said that it is that ‘Pixel mind’ that makes us appreciate the time and distance coordinates. It is also that which gives us the ‘ego’ and separates each of us from one another and from the Almighty,
As one gets enlightened, one would see those pixels ‘melting’, and one’s ego going away. For the enlightened, time and space cease to exist or that they experience the universe without the time and distance constraints. And motion becomes an illusion in a way!
The numbers that our pixel minds have invented go infinitely but they don’t go as a continuous phenomenon. Rather each number is a discrete entity with an infinite gap in between any two ‘adjacent’ numbers. But the real world phenomena are both continuos and infinite. And hence is the inability of numbers in accurately describing the real world phenomena.
LikeLike
@gerryrzeppa & @drgsrinivas
With regards to calculating pi, you will find this fascinating.
And there are , deleberate (of course!), reasons why ‘our’ pi is wrong:
“For reasons that will be soon explained, traditional Pi is deficient because historically it has awkwardly used logical straight lines to measure illogical curvature. Thus, by using the highest level of mathematics known as Intuitive Maths, the True Value of Pi must be a bit more than anticipated to compensate for the mysterious “Area Under The Curve”. When this is done, the value, currently known as JainPi, = 3.144… can be derived, by knowing the precise Height of the Cheops Pyramid which is based on the Divine Phi Proportion (1.618…). Instead of setting our diameter at 1 unit or 1 square, something magical happens when we set the diameter at the diagonal length of a Double Square = 2.236… which is the Square Root of 5 (meaning 2.236… x 2.236… = 5). This is the critical part of the formula that derives Phi (1+√5)÷2, and was used by ancient vedic seers as their starting point to construct their most important diagram or ‘Yantra’ or power-art called the Sri Yantra. With a Root 5 diameter, the translation of the Phi’s formula into a geometric construct derives the royal Maltese Cross symbol, concluding that Phi is Pi, that Phi generates Pi, and that Pi must be derived with a knowledge of the Harmonics of Phi. When this is understood and utilized, we will collectively enter into a veritable Space Age.”
More here:
http://www.jainmathemagics.com/truevalueofpijainpi/
and this is one of the reasons we have a wrong pi:
“Billy Meier is a Swiss farmer in contact with Plearjen people (humans like you and me) since the age of 6.
In Contact 251 (http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_251) it is stated :
“In the process they will discover that the base for pi was miscalculated. By eliminating the error in pi, and correcting future computations based on pi, scientists and their amazing, highly developed technology will have the capability to make unimaginable energies accessible to the people of Earth”. ”
I guess it has to do with frequencies and vibrating, like Tesla once said:
““If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.
― Nikola Tesla”
Namaste!
Galacar
LikeLike
It seems, Dr. Gonuguntla, that we’re both reading our theology back into our scientific investigations. But I’m fine with that, since I define Theology as “The Study of God and His works,” which makes all of the lesser “-ologies” (geology, biology, sociology, etc) and sciences (math, physics, chemistry, etc) mere contributors to the larger study.
drgsrinivas says, “For example, electrons don’t exist as one electron, two electrons etc. Everything in this world exist as a continuous phenomena. It’s just that our neurology and the software we are made of makes us feel things as discrete entities and makes us ignore that which is in-between.”
I reply, Well, if that’s the way we’re made, perhaps that’s the way God intended us to see and understand things.
drgsrinivas says, “Having said that it is that ‘Pixel mind’ that makes us appreciate the time and distance coordinates. It is also that which gives us the ‘ego’ and separates each of us from one another and from the Almighty,
I reply, in Christian theology, we don’t have to choose between unity and diversity. God is one and yet three. As, for example, time is one, but is also past, present, and future; as space is one, but is also height, width, and depth; as matter is one, but is manifested as solid, liquid, and gas. So the triune God creates a trinity-of-trinities universe, and shapes our minds and senses to understand it as such.
drgsrinivas says, “As one gets enlightened, one would see those pixels ‘melting’, and one’s ego going away. For the enlightened, time and space cease to exist or that they experience the universe without the time and distance constraints. And motion becomes an illusion in a way!”
I reply, The enlightened Christian agrees that the present creation is broken — that “the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.” But he does not believe that the elimination of distinctions is the solution; rather, he looks forward to the time when each thing will be perfectly itself (and not another), yet in complete submission to the will of the Father; it is then that God will be “all in all” with no end to either unity or diversity.
drgsrinivas says, The numbers that our pixel minds have invented go infinitely but they don’t go as a continuous phenomenon. Rather each number is a discrete entity with an infinite gap in between any two ‘adjacent’ numbers. But the real world phenomena are both continuous and infinite. And hence is the inability of numbers in accurately describing the real world phenomena.
I agree that numbers cannot, and were never intended to fully describe real world phenomena. But that doesn’t mean they’re useless. Properly employed, they are one of many tools that help us understand certain aspects of reality, and help us fulfill our God-given destiny as the masters of this planet. In the words of the prophet: “the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God,” after we, ourselves, are perfected.
As Kepler one said, it is a privilege to “think God’s thoughts after Him.” But since God’s ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts as the heavens are higher than the earth, it seems we must not strive to “exercise ourselves in great matters, or in things too high for us,” but be satisfied with the glorious (though limited and discrete) perspective He has so graciously allowed us. “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men…. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”
LikeLike
To me science and theology are n’t separate things. True science will surely lead one to understand God and attain unity with Him.
By the way, I never said numbers are useless. I just meant that by clinging to numbers, one can’t solve every puzzle or explain every phenomenon in this universe, and by that I thought I was corroborating what you said. May be I misunderstood your stand. In fact not just numbers, everything in this world will have some purpose. Despite me crying that our science is wrong and terrorism is bad, God let those things into our world with a clear purpose. So nothing that exists in this world, whether man made or otherwise, can be considered really useless if one looks with a clear broader mind. So I would never say numbers are useless.
Well, God hasn’t given people that freedom to stay ignorant and be satisfied. While He limits some people to remain at the ape level and keep wandering in the world that He created, He lets some to become saints and elevates some of them to His level to become His messengers. To strive or not to strive is not something you or I decide!
LikeLike
Dear Dr Gonuguntla,
I see that we agree about a great many things. Yet I’m afraid we disagree about a few, very fundamental things. Free will, for example. When, for example, you say…
“God hasn’t given people that freedom to stay ignorant and be satisfied. While He limits some people to remain at the ape level and keep wandering in the world that He created, He lets some to become saints and elevates some of them to His level to become His messengers. To strive or not to strive is not something you or I decide!”
…it seems to me that you’re saying essentially the same thing as Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” But that’s only half the story, because the verse immediately before that says, “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” An apparent paradox, to be sure. But not to be resolved by ignoring half of the data.
This is hardly the place to discuss the differences between Christian and Hindu theology. If you’d like to continue striving with me in our mutual search for Truth, please write me directly, gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com
LikeLike
Dear gerryrzeppa
I can understand your stance and I welcome differences in opinions, for, I realize that, it is variations that sustain this creation and bring elegance to it. I don’t believe that humans really have free will. Robots’ thinking and behavior entirely depends upon how they get programmed. Depending upon how they get programmed to think about their master, robots can be broadly categorized into the following three groups
1) Those who insist that they got evolved from lesser machines. They argue that they have enough evidence to believe in evolution, so they don’t believe in the existence of a master/creator and think that they act completely on their own will (atheist robots)
2) Those who are aware of the master but believe that they act largely on their own will. Only in some special situations they think they get commanded or guided by the master.
3) Those who ‘realize’ that all robots are created by a master and all their thinking and behavior is totally under the control of the master, directly or indirectly.
And I happen to belong to the third category of human robots!
When a master says to a robot “go and get charged your self”, it doesn’t mean that the robot is going to achieve it on its own. Its just a way of commanding the robot to keep it alive and to work for the master. Of course the master has to provide many other inputs and provisions for that to actually happen.
Similarly when the Bible says “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”, it could be a command/message from the Creator to its people to do something so that His creation sustains for ever and maintains its elegancy. Whether some one achieves salvation or not depends upon the interaction of a multitude of inputs and provisions that God allows, and reading the above verse from Bible is one of those multitude of things. And surely, God could lead people to salvation via many different paths, without making them read that Bible.
I don’t think paradoxes and contradictions really exist in Bible, Quran or Gita. Its probably that modern people are too ‘educated’ to be able to read them in the correct sense and context. I do believe that they all contain the Truth. Having said that, I must admit that, apart from hear say quotations, I haven’t read any of those religious texts including Gita, to be able to argue what each of them actually preach. I neither can read the original texts myself nor do I have any faith in the third party translations/ interpretations of those ancient epics. I simply go by commonsense and reasoning. I believe that would surely take me to the same conclusion that one would arrive at by reading the above texts.
LikeLike
Dr. Gonuguntla says, “I simply go by commonsense and reasoning. I believe that would surely take me to the same conclusion that one would arrive at by reading the above texts.”
I reply, Come, then, let us reason together. Premise #1. Do you agree that we all recognize standards of behavior that we believe are right, and yet are unable to meet? In other words, do you agree that we all feel that we ought to do certain things, and ought not to do others, and yet we find ourselves failing on both counts, again and again?
LikeLike
This is what I have said on twitter
“Adharma (Iniquity) is always the result of Ajnana (Ignorance)”
It all boils down to ignorance.
People aren’t good to others because they simply don’t know what is good to them.
What is really good to oneself will also be good to others. And if one really knows what is good to oneself, one would automatically do that, because that’s what would make oneself most happy.
So one doesn’t have to be good for others sake. If one remains good to oneself, that would automatically be good to others.
By the way, people don’t know what is real happiness. They only know about the momentary satanic pleasures that come from material luxuries, money and power. As they compete and run for these, they not only harm others but also harm themselves.
LikeLike
Dr. Gonuguntla says, “It all boils down to ignorance…. [people] simply don’t know what is good to [or for] them…. people don’t know what is real happiness. They only know about the momentary satanic pleasures that come from material luxuries, money and power. As they compete and run for these, they not only harm others but also harm themselves.”
I agree with all of that. But ignorance is not pertinent to my Premise #1 (“we all KNOW that we ought to do certain things, and ought not to do others, and yet we find ourselves failing on both counts, again and again”). I’m talking about things everyone innately KNOWS.
We all KNOW, for example, that our tone of voice was unduly harsh when we responded to so-and-so; we all KNOW that we shouldn’t have eaten the last donut (especially since we already ate six of them); we all KNOW that we should have taken out the trash before we sat down to play video games, etc. So there are things we all KNOW we ought and ought not do, yet we fail to do the one, and persist in doing the other, anyway. Again and again.
The Apostle Paul puts it this way: “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want…. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free?” So it is not ignorance that is the fundamental problem, but rather “sin [ie, our fallen nature] that dwells in us.” And who is willing and able to set us free from that? Only One, Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Well, people as they behave harsh, as they eat that extra donut and as they remain lazy and not clear the trash, they derive momentary satanic pleasures. And why do people crave for the satanic pleasures? Because they don’t know that they can derive more and long lasting happiness by behaving otherwise. If people truly know that, why would they resort to such sinful actions/inactions and settle for the lesser satanic pleasure?
People know that drinking alcohol is not good and that it only gives them momentary happiness. But they still drink it because they don’t know how to harvest happiness without drinking alcohol. So it is again “ignorance(=sin) that dwells in us”.
And there exist two paths for people to set themselves free, both commissioned by God
1) the path of knowledge
2) the path of devotion: religiously following the God’s words in the Sacred books
But God seem to have closed both the paths for now for a change!
Those who are in the first path have acquired false knowledge and swearing that as ‘science’.
And those who are in the second path have misinterpreted their sacred books and turning themselves into religious extremists.
LikeLike
Galagar says, “ALL the religions where once invented to control people. When that didn’t seem to work as strong anymore the control tool
called ‘science’ was invented. And If everything in this world is a lie, well, then also the religions.”
I reply, Whew! You had me worried there for a second. Good thing that Christianity is not a religion, but a supernatural rebirth, wholly by the grace of God, that brings one into an organic relationship with God through Jesus Christ (who is either the world’s greatest charlatan and nutcase, or who is risen from the dead and is exactly what He claimed to be — “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”) Christ IS Christianity, Christianity IS Christ, and we (individual Christians) are the members of the body of which He is the Head; if you prefer, He is the Vine, and we are the branches. Our life — all life — comes from and through Him.
LikeLike
Dr. Gonuguntla says, “And there exist two paths for people to set themselves free, both commissioned by God
1) the path of knowledge
2) the path of devotion: religiously following the God’s words in the Sacred books
But God seem to have closed both the paths for now for a change!
Those who are in the first path have acquired false knowledge and swearing that as ‘science’. And those who are in the second path have misinterpreted their sacred books and turning themselves into religious extremists.”
I reply, indeed. It seems we humans can ruin anything. Hence the need to be “…born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, who lives and abides for ever” Those who are spiritually dead, deaf and blind cannot acquire and make use of the knowledge they need; they must first be quickened by God himself, “by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” You can’t make a faulty program run properly by feeding it good data; you have to fix the program first. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
LikeLike