The nature of cause and effect was scientifically explained by Isaac Newton during late seventeenth century. It was a classical mechanistic view. These ideas went through some changes with the evolution of quantum mechanics during twentieth century. However, Sage Kanada had scientifically discussed the nature of ‘Cause and Effect’ in his ‘Vaisesika Sutras’ more than two thousand years ago. This article will deliberate on the thoughts expressed by Sage Kanada which account for both classical and quantum views and then discusses their correlation with modern scientific ideas.
The nature of cause and effect was scientifically explained by Isaac Newton during late seventeenth century. It was a classical mechanistic view. These ideas went through some changes with the evolution of quantum mechanics during twentieth century. However, Sage Kanada had scientifically discussed the nature of ‘Cause and Effect’ in his ‘Vaisesika Sutras’ more than two thousand years ago. This article will deliberate on the thoughts expressed by Sage Kanada which account for both classical and quantum views and then discusses their correlation with modern scientific ideas.
What is 'the nature of reality’? This thought has occupied the minds of scientists and philosophers since time immemorial. This issue is examined scientifically, that, how the views of scientists and western philosophers have undergone a dramatic change over a period of time. This may then answer whether spacetime is a reality of nature or if it is just a figment of our imagination in which to view this cosmos! The article begins with the thoughts of Democritus, and the other Greek philosophers, continuing with the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. With the thoughts of Bacon, Descartes and Isaac Newton, the rise of the ‘mechanical world view’ later the decline of this view is discussed when the phenomenon in optics, electricity and magnetism could not be explained. Then the concept of ‘field’ was evolved, culminating in ‘Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic fields’.The beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘quantum theory’, starting with the idea of ‘quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of the 20th century saw great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics - totally new ideas on ‘the nature of reality’ were being conceived. Large numbers of fundamental particles were discovered in the ensuing years. However, not much progress indeed was made in answering some of the most fundamental questions about the existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism, along with the ideas of quantum theory and the concept of consciousness, may answer some of the intricate questions about the nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from the perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions about the existence of life and the ‘nature of reality’ itself.Beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘Relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘Quantum Theory’, starting with the idea of ‘Quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of 20th century saw the great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics. Absolutely new ideas on ‘The Nature of Reality’ were being conceived. Large number of fundamental particles was discovered in the ensuing years. But not much progress indeed took place in answering some of the most fundamental questions on existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘Biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism along with the ideas of Quantum Theory and the concept of Consciousness may answer some of the intricate questions on nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions on the existence of life and the ‘Nature of Reality’ itself.
This chapter traces the origins of quantum mechanics. The classical mechanics developed by Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century is an extraordinarily successful theory for describing the motion of everyday objects and planets. However, late in the nineteenth century, scientists started to make observations that could not be explained by classical mechanics. They were forced to revise their entire conception of the nature of matter and replace classical mechanics by a theory that became known as quantum mechanics. The chapter begins by looking at energy quantization, considering black-body radiation, heat capacity, and atomic and molecular spectra. It then discusses wave–particle duality, which is the recognition that the concepts of particle and wave blend together.
A physics-based understanding of how our conscious thoughts can affect our physically described brains is presented. This understanding depends on the shift from the mechanical conception of nature that prevailed in science from the time of Isaac Newton until the dawn of the twentieth century to the psychophysical conception that emerged from the findings of Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, and von Neumann. This shift converted the role of our conscious thoughts from that of passive observers of a causally closed physically described universe to that of active participants in an essentially psychophysical understanding of nature. 1. The Basic Question and Why It Is Important. Science’s conception of the physical world changed radically during the twentieth century. At the end of the nineteenth century most scientists still viewed the physical universe as essentially a giant machine. This mechanical view emerged from the seventeenth century work of Isaac Newton, who built his conception of nature on the ideas of Rene Descartes. According to Descartes, the universe is composed of two kinds of elements, the first consisting of elements each of which occupies at each instant of time a definite region in space, and the second consisting of elements that include our human thoughts. Descartes allowed these two parts of nature to interact causally within our brains, but Newton specified that the motions of the elements of the first kind are completely determined by laws of motion that refer exclusively to elements of this kind. In Newtonian-type physics these elements of the first kind are, moreover, essentially mechanical, in the sense that they have been stripped of the experiential qualities that characterize our thoughts, such as the conscious awareness of feelings, and the capacity to grasp meanings. Consequently there is in Newtonian-type physics no possibility for any causally effective role for any aspects of our being that are essentially different in kind from the mechanical elements that occur in that type of physics. Descartes’ views accommodated our intuitive feeling that our conscious thoughts can influence our bodily movements – my conscious intent to raise my arm seems to cause my arm to rise – whereas Newton’s physics leads to the contrary conclusion that, in spite of what may seem to be the case, the notion that human thoughts, per se, can affect human actions is a deeply misleading illusion. Newton’s ideas led eventually to the classical physics of the late nineteenth century. Its main premises are these: 2 1. There exists a material universe that develops over the course of time by means of interactions of its tiny mechanical parts with neighboring tiny mechanical parts. 2. These interactions are governed by mathematical laws. 3. These laws entail that the mechanically described future is completely determined by the mechanically described past, with no reference to human thoughts, choices, or
Abstract A scientist in the late nineteenth century could be forgiven for thinking that the major elements of physics were built on unshakeable foundations and effectively established for all time. The inspirational work of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century had been shaped by a further 200 years of theoretical and, in particular, experimental science into a marvellous construction which we now call classical physics. This physics appeared to explain almost every aspect of the physical world: the dynamics of moving objects, thermodynamics, optics, electricity, magnetism, gravitation, etc. So closely did theory agree with and explain experimental observations of the everyday world that there could be no doubt about its basic correctness- its essential ‘truth’. Admittedly, there were a few remaining problems but these seemed to be trivial compared with the fundamentals - a matter of dotting a few is and crossing some ts.
For thousands of years, the law of cause and effect guided scientific inquiry. In fact, the history of the concept of causality can be traced through Hebrew, Babylonian, Greek and European cultures. Certain Greek philosophers, however, introduced the atomistic concept of chance-events to oppose the common-sense application of causality. The resulting conflict between cause versus chance has not only shaped the history of science but has imposed lasting effects on Western cul- ture as a whole. This conflict intensified during the Twentieth Century as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) became the leading tool of the proponents of chance. More recent findings have now demonstrated that the HUP fails in six actual cases. Common Sense Science counters chance-based philosophy by returning to causality and other principles of Classical Science such as the conser- vation of energy and the use of physical finite-sized models for fundamental particles (e.g., the electron). This paper shows how physical models based on the laws of electricity and magnetism fully implement the law of cause and effect in the manner of the four causes required by Aristotle. Chance-based physics is exposed as false science based on erroneous assumptions about supposed chance-events instead of causal relationships.
Agr??t deal of so-called classical physics takes its cues from the work shop nd from the machinist' art. This is true no only in erms of generalities; it has often held in a very personal sense. For example, Isaac Newton was a passionate tinkerer in his younger years. Again, to take a more recent instance, this writer has had the privilege on two oc casions, of a lengthy scientific discussion with Albert Einstein. Although the specific subject matters were quite different, it was striking, each time, to see the way Einstein's mind was working through engineering images and how often he used the engineer's language. Interpolation of numberless other examples between these two giants of classical physics would be easy but the subject is too well known to insist upon it. To de scribe, as is customary, the philosophy of classical physics as mechanistic is apt phraseology. The introduction of statistical elements into physical theory became extensive about a century ago through kinetic theory, which was then mathematically organized into statistical mechanics. A much more radi cal penetration of statistical elements into physics occurred with the ad vent of quantum mechanics. The development of mathematical methods was rapid but the interpretation which constituted the breaking away from mechanistic types of thought was slower. Again, these matters are such a well-known part of scientific history that we need not dwell on them. Owing to the long-standing tradition of mechanistic models, sta tistical features have often been considered either as a nuisance or as a pretext for mathematical elegance in preference to the approach which we take here, namely, thinking of them as a class of remarkable natural phenomena in their own right. Along with the various mechanistic models of matter, there has throughout history existed another trend of natural philosophy: Its basic view is to think of matter as a creative agency. Since according to an age old adage nothing comes out of nothing, we need to state this proposition more clearly if it is to make sense. The possibility of its essentially abstract formulation will then become apparent in due turn. Because the mecha nist has at his disposal differential equations and the conservation laws which they imply, he can, and invariably does, push the problems of creation into the dim recesses of time and space. On the other hand, when we speak of creativity we must here imply that a material substrate is 502