A CLUE TO THE PURPOSE

_{ENTROPY the state of EQUANIMITY. (purpose – 5)}

_{This blog concludes the discussion on the “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE”. This book was authored by Swami Vijnananand (S. V.) and published in December 1961. We shall see the brief excerpts from this book and try to summarize the conclusions}

_{REVIEW OF EARLIER BLOGS on ‘PURPOSE’:}

_{In the first blog titled} “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE Why and how of the universe” October 10’ 2013, _{we saw that while there are some theories on HOW of the Universe, WHY of the universe is not explained by science or any other discipline of knowledge. The conversation on the subject published by The Templeton foundation gives views of the experts, which we have reviewed it in details. The conclusion in brief is: “While the purpose of the universe may or may not be spelt out, every prudent individual should identify / know and live his life with meaningful purpose.}

_{The second blog “}CAUSALITY OF ACCIDENTS (PURPOSE - 2) Nature of 'Accidents'” of October 17’ 2013 _{is based on one chapter from the book under reference. Dealing in details with the so-called accidents, S. V rationally concludes – Every accident is related to deserving cause though beyond cognition at an individual plane. There are no accidents in nature. We may not know the purpose (i.e. intent or cause), but the being of the Universe cannot be considered as an accident.}

_{Blog 3 titled FREE WILL RESEARCH dated 22nd October’ 2013: This deals with the controversies and opposing views held by different camps of scientists, philosophers regarding the existence / non-existence off Free will. A project sponsored by Templeton Foundation is dealing with advance comprehensive research on the subject. Dr. Prof. Alfred Mele and some other experts in the field express a view that before any meaningful conclusions bridging the gaps can be drawn the acceptability of the ‘free will’ concept by all concerned based on the proper ‘definition’ is necessary.}

_{Blog 4} CAUSALITY, FREE WILL CONVERSATION dated 24th October’2013: Here _{we find S.V. explaining in simple terms the concepts of FREE WILL and CAUSALITY. The discussion appropriately bridges the relationship between the concepts with rational arguments.}

_{Chapter wise excerpts followed by summary:}

_{Chapter 1, "WHY" OF THE UNIVERSE}

_{Let it be straightway conceded that science scarcely aims at offering an absolutely trust worthy interpretation of the purpose of the universe. And at the same time, let it be added that not only science, but no branch of knowledge can legitimately enter in such vaunting (boastful) ambition. If all the thinkers sail in same boat, there is nothing wrong in remaining in the scientists’ camp, without having any inferiority complex. After all, science surpasses any other mode of investigation and it is unwise to argue that because science does not offer an all-embracing solution, a murky black-out is worth our vote. Science is no monopoly of a chosen few; its inferences and its laboratory are open to anyone, truly inspired. Einstein says, "I can think nothing, more objectionable than the idea of science for the scientists" Failures of science offer something which is always better than nothing. Science may not give us all the keys to the code of the universe, but there is no harm in accepting a clue to a part of it that is revealed to us, however microscopic it may be.}

_{Let every man know his own Purpose, purpose of the universe will take care of itself. A scientist observes, "There is more obscurity (uncertainty, vagueness) in people who propound that there is no purpose in the universe, and 'purposefully' fight throughout their life to expound this thesis. Sure enough, it is an abuse of human sagacity to turn a deaf ear to tickling hints of Nature, suggesting her definite purpose. For being enlightened about this purpose, scientific rationale is worth implementing. And if science declares its incapacity at a given moment; taken in right spirit; should assure us of its 'bona fide character' and unshaken courage.}

_{CHAPTER 2: FIRST CLUE OF SCIENCE AND CHAPTER 3: FALL OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS.}

_{It is false to suppose that science takes the root from Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo or Bacon and Newton. Science is not an invention by itself. It is rather a tool employed by any motivated animal. From time memorable, men too have been observing, memorizing the observation, synthesizing its results, on repeated experiments finding out common features in Nature's phenomenon and have been turning such Nature's manifestations as the model code of conduct. The primitive who first put the softly bright flame into service was no other than a scientist, and his bubbling, lively extreme joy after his first successful attempt could not be anyway less than that of Watt, the Wright Brothers and Max Planck when miraculous' success crowned them. Not until the seventeenth century, however, scientific fact-finding could make headway of a sizable proportion, to displace the mystifying dogmas of the awe-adoring masses in general. Geniuses like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo labored throughout their lives under the shadow of fate that pounced upon Socrates, for sticking up to his own matured convictions.}

_{Since Maxwell's time itself, Newtonian mechanics was confronted with the initial challenges. Yet, concluding evidence was lacking in greater details, till the onset of the twentieth century. Max Planck first conceived and nursed new physics that leads to the great achievements by Einstein, Bohr and a number of others amongst whom Heisenberg takes away the laurels. Most certainly Heisenberg took new physics to new heights. He, in late thirties, ascertained the principle of uncertainty and as a consequence the deterministic attitude was obliged to give way. The new principle cautioned against the unwarranted optimism anent ability of a scientist to predict in the orthodox way. And yet more, in an attempt to fix up the position of a particle itself,} control over knowledge of its velocity is lost and hence the researcher is left in a curious quandary. It was first discovered by Planck that the matter _{travels 'discontinuously'.}

_{CHAPTER FOUR -- Limitations of Quantum}

Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory starts with a paradox. It starts from the fact that we describe our experiments in the terms of classical physics and at the same time from the knowledge that these concepts do not fit nature accurately. The tension between these two starting, points is the root of the statistical character of quantum theory. Therefore, it has sometimes been suggested that one should depart from the classical concepts altogether and that a radical change in the concepts used for describing the experiments might possibly lead back to a non-statistical, completely objective description of nature.

This suggestion, however, rests upon a misunderstanding. The concepts of classical physics are just a refinement of the concepts of daily life and are an essential part of the language which forms the basis of all natural science. Our actual situation in science is such that we do use the classical concepts for the description of the experiments, and it was the problem of quantum theory to find theoretical interpretation of the experiments on this basis. There is no use in discussing what could be done if we were other beings than we are. At this point we have to realize, as von Weizsacker has put it, that 'Nature is earlier than man, but man is earlier than natural science'. The first part of the sentence justifies classical physics, with its ideal of complete objectivity. The second part tells us why we cannot escape the paradox of quantum theory, namely, the necessity of using the classical concepts.

CHATTER FIVE - Copenhagen Mishandles Mind

Heisenberg favors the wave picture in the most un-equivocal terms, being more convenient. He says, “By means of its frequencies and intensities the radiation gives information about the oscillating charge distribution in the atom, and there the wave picture comes much nearer to the truth than the particle picture". Clearly then, to Heisenberg, non-matter presents a dominating, convenient and basic structure of the universe.

On this ground Marxist (materialists) scientists bitterly assail Copenhagen interpretation. Blochinzev slashes out, "Among the different idealists' trends in contemporary physics, the so-called Copenhagen School is the most reactionary".

One must be bold enough. I have neither to take sides nor any offence is meant to idealists or Heisenberg, for whom I have profound respect. Nevertheless the Copenhagen School invites a diatribe (bitter attack, violent criticism) for their attitude of sitting on the fence.

Various authors in their own words are thus far exhaustively reproduced so that there should be no accusation they are misrepresenting. But, after all, an open minded scientist has to make up his own mind about his own declaration of faith. For instance, if physics deals with matter which itself leaves no track and chooses to substitute a different basic structure, one does not know what remains of physics. And if nothing remains of it, one must be bold enough to acknowledge such a predicament perplexity, not tacitly (silently, with unspoken words) but expressed.

Scientists subscribe to mind as non-material entity. To begin with Heisenberg himself yields accord to psyche, being independent of matter. On page 28 of Heisenberg's 'Physics and Philosophy', in the introduction by Prof. Northrop he says, "In any event, two things seem clear and make what Heisenberg says on these matters exceedingly important. First, the principle of complementarity and the present validity of the Cartesian and common-sense concepts of body and mind stand and fall together. Second, it may be that both these notions are merely convenient stepladders which should now be, or must eventually be, thrown away. Even so, in the case of the theory of mind at least, the stepladder will have to remain until by its use we find the more linguistically exact and empirically satisfactory theory that will permit us to throw the Cartesian language away". Prof. Northrop in the next sentence itself says that “the only difficulty which disturbs Heisenberg is diverse notions on mind and lack of scientific language that can describe it”.

'What Mind Means' which is another treatise in this series (New Way series), aims at such synthesis. What really remains to be proved should be the responsibility of Heisenberg himself. It is his quest (investigation) that has led humanity to the new height of knowledge and its consequent corollaries (obvious deductions) can hardly be evaded.

Heisenberg says that the laws of physics do not hold good in a living man (the only difference being existence of mind in this case) and he holds it more true in psychology, "If we go beyond biology and include psychology in the discussion, then there can scarcely be any doubt but that the concepts of physics, chemistry, and evolution together will not be sufficient to describe the facts. On this point the existence of quantum theory has changed our attitude from what was believed in the nineteenth century. During that period some scientists were inclined to think that the psychological phenomena could ultimately be explained on the basis of physics and chemistry of the brain. From the quantum-theoretical point of view there is no reason for such an assumption. We would, in spite of the fact that the physical events in the brain belong to the psychic phenomena, not expect that these could be sufficient to explain them."

Physics deals with the matter and if the laws of matter do not apply to an entity, it hardly remains material, at the given moment. Heisenberg is a rational scientist and he had to come to the conclusion that the concept of non-material covers a very wide range. He himself admits concept of God, Soul, and Mind etc. in science, on page 172 of his treatise; yet, in the next paragraph itself, he adheres to scientific method howsoever limited utility it offers.

This apparent contradiction disappears if mind is taken to be identical with non- matter, whether in wave or in other manifestations. It is worth reiteration that I am not dogmatic in these assertions; but unless science throws further light on this problem, there is no other way but to accept that the mind is itself identical with any “motion”, or any "cause" as such, if the word identical is not pressed too far and kept open for further classification, in view of present state of knowledge.

CHAPTER SIX Causation and Mind

Cause and effect relationship subsists throughout Nature, howsoever conceptually.

Newtonian causality has never gained ground, unimpeachably; while quantum has never denied true essence of causal code. Causality, though scientists are not fully aware of its details in all its perspective, remains a valid law. In fact, quantum renders due respect to causality.

Measurability is put off the scent (gives wrong or confusing information), in the new situation. The limitation reflects on our own to trace back 'mind' behind the matter. Normally, an ideal measurability in minutest details sounds superfluous. Effect being a measure of its effective cause is utterly undeniable, howsoever perplexing a picture the whole process presents to the imperfect analyzer, examiner.

CHAPTER SEVEN Causation and Disease

Should the medical authority be inclined to calculate upon unalterable authenticity of cause and effect relationship, he cannot cavil (find fault unnecessarily) at 'effect' exclusively having an internal origin. The man himself is the cause of disease, whatever its nature and in spite of unknowability (ignorance) of its immediate discernible (distinguishable) cause. The premise has been discussed in four volumes of this (new way) series and particularly in 'Cure without Medicine' and 'The Rich, Ambitious and Healthy'; though it calls for further elucidation, in as much as the problem touches causation in human stride. It is true that to prove disease in each case having a within-bound root amounts to a formidable task save (except, but) for theory of causation. On endorsing the theory, unchallengeable on the level of gross matter, in any event, no extra evidence is needed.

CHAPTER 8: Nature of 'Accidents'

Are there accidents in Nature? If not then the ‘causality’ prevails. We may not know the cause at each occasion, for every effect. If being of universe is the ‘effect’ then there must be a cause behind it, this is a logical conclusion. Science or any other discipline of knowledge is not being able to detect it would not rule out its existence. This chapter discusses the nature of so-called accidents.

Necessarily then, every effect-disease, accident, dis- pleasure is related to a deserving cause, though beyond cognition, at an individual Plane. There are no accidents or co-incidences in nature although we may not be able to trace the cause in every occurrence of such nature.

Chapter 9: Clue to Purpose

If I leave the ambitious project of penetrating through the purpose of universe, and instead explore the unknown regions of myself and elevate the inner core, indiscerptible universe also to that extent stands elevated, enlightened. Such an ultra-stoical (extra calm) philosophy may be faithfully followed by a few, conveniently ignored by some and indignantly criticized by many, who would be directly hit by its tenets. But, convinced of my opinions, beliefs, there remains no real adversary from my point of view and as for my reprove, he too learns in the process of launching on me a carping but one-sided attack.

Threshold of Heisenberg era has opened new vista in the world of knowledge. The principle of indeterminacy has helped us diligently discover the source of living animal in non-material form and it has assisted us to recognize that the "living" is not any quality or development of matter.

If a dead body is kicked with dishonor; the effects will follow merely the laws of matter. The rate at which the skeleton is displaced can be determined. Before the body breathes its last, even the gesture of a kick reacts swiftly and stubbornly. Well, if the offended is a coward he may make a swift move and honorable retreat. In any event the reaction eludes predictability when something more than mere matter is under consideration. This element of indeterminacy is revealed by new quantum mechanics. It has helped us to cogitate beyond the notion of matter and give due respect, both to mind and matter.

Our talk of supremacy of mind is a mere balderdash to say the least. The capricious mind entertains ego, greed, affection, anger and these waves are cited as proofs to establish mind's superiority over matter. Thinkers of all faiths lay stress on evil attributes of such exciting palpitations and recommend voluntarily accepted quiescence (quietness, in-activity). Indeed, matter is an exemplary model for such an object, since matter has no passionate fidgets (uneasiness, impatience), which the languid (slack, slow) mind proudly claims. Matter is not attached to mind it is the other way round. The law of indeterminacy, therefore, has not only helped to lay the distinction between mind and matter, but also to focus our attention on the cause of indeterminacy, which takes its root from extra- mundane entity, mind.

This state of affairs, everyone slavishly dancing at the beck and call of mind, does not seem to be covetable. If each owner of personality defers his oscillations and dispassionately broods over for a moment, 'New Way philosophy' seeks to place before the layman, the great importance of both indeterminacy and causality and tersely indicates how these laws should be understood by the elated (very happy or joyful) individual. The might of neutrality and silence properly perceived this synthesis brought about should be conductive.

The principle of entropy, Barnet calls it the only principle of old physics, yet unchallenged, asserts that in time to come, there will be no energy-transformation and consequently living as seen presently, will draw to a close. Not waiting for the imposed extinction, and instead of continuing to suffer under the false label of pleasure, is it not worth-while aiming at a 'personal entropy’ and reach the state where no energy-transformations are motivated, at least in the internal realm? Pragmatic philosophers idealize detachment as a principle, par excellence, so echoes Einstein and so trust the celebrated scientists.

  

Lecomte du Nouy, in his work, 'Human Destiny' (Nobel Prize Winner Millikan puts it in the first three of the century), categorically affirms, "The source of all evil is in the very substance of man. To extirpate (remove totally) this evil we must neutralize not only the instincts inherited from our animal ancestors, but the superstitions transmitted by our human ancestors, the excrescences of an uncontrolled mental activity, of misguided ambitions, and replace them with the sense of human dignity".

My comments … 

It would be a worth proposition for inquisitive readers to refer to the original book. My perception based on the study reveals the summary as follows:

Chapter 1 tells about the impossibility on the part of Science or any other branch of knowledge to answer WHY of the universe. Without bothering for the purpose of the Universe it may be better idea to find own purpose. Nature signals some hints to indicate its purpose.

Chapter 2 to 5 take a brief historical review of science up to the stage of the ‘principle of uncertainty’ and draw a conclusion that the theoretical existence of non- material form of the reality has to be accepted by science which is normally called as ‘mind’.

Chapter 6 and 7 give detail analysis and deductions supporting the concept of CAUSALITY prevailing in nature. We may not know the purpose (i.e. cause), but the being of the Universe cannot be ruled as an accident. There are no accidents or co-incidences in nature although we may not be able to trace the cause in every occurrence of such nature; concludes chapter 8.

Chapter 9 points toward ENTROPY as the clue of Purpose. As per the present knowledge the universe is destined to reach the stage of entropy as it will end its journey. Entropy is to be considered as stage of equanimity instead of ‘highest disorder’. A human being; also a part of the universe can endeavor to reach a stage of entropy within by trying to achieve a steady, balanced state of mind. All great thinkers of humanity recommend such an action.

The purpose of the existence of the universe is not known to the science but the end is known as a stage of no motion i.e. entropy. That is a stage of equality as elaborately explained by S.V. on rational concepts. If a human being tries to develop the attitude of equality within his mind then his efforts will be in alignment with the journey of universe. Possibly at such a stage of mind he may be able to know the real purpose of the universe.

Vijay R. Joshi.