Despite the extraordinary successes the two great bastions of $20^{th}$ century science (Quantum Theory and General Relativity) are troubled with serious conceptual and mathematical difficulties. As a result, further growth of fundamental science is at stake. Is this the end of science? Optimistic answer is ``NOT''! In this work, it is argued that science must continue its cruise, but with anew strategy -- a thorough recourse into the grass-root level working of science is inevitable. In fact, our conventional scientific methods are based upon ordinary sense perception, which keeps the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. Basically, it is the observer -- the knower (human mind) -- which makes perception possible. It makes a person or scientist to recognize or refute the existence of an object or a phenomenon. It is also tempted to evince that working of human mind is epistemically scientific and can, in principle, be completely deciphered. It's inclusion in scientific theories, although tedious, can certainly spark a revolution in our understanding of nature and reality.
Despite the extraordinary successes the two great bastions of 20th century science (Quantum Theory and General Relativity) are troubled with serious conceptual and mathematical difficulties. As a result, further growth of fundamental science is at stake. Is this the end of science? Optimistic answer is ``NOT''! In this work, it is argued that science must continue its cruise, but with anew strategy -- a thorough recourse into the grass-root level working of science is inevitable. In fact, our conventional scientific methods are based upon ordinary sense perception, which keeps the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. Basically, it is the observer -- the knower (human mind) -- which makes perception possible. It makes a person or scientist to recognize or refute the existence of an object or a phenomenon. It is also tempted to evince that working of human mind is epistemically scientific and can, in principle, be completely deciphered. It's inclusion in scientific theories, although tedious, can certainly spark a revolution in our understanding of nature and reality.
Quantum theory has been proved as an outstanding mystery in modern science. The predictions of science have turned out to be probabilistic. The principle of determinism has failed. For systems like weather, earthquakes, rolling dices etc... and of course human behavior it has proved impossible, for science, to describe a state of the system accurately for a long time into the future. Moreover, modern cosmology has to rely on philosophical assumptions. It is argued -- by taking into account of the views of learned scientists and philosophers -- that modern science can never explain everything and it is a hard fact to discover the ``Theory Of Everything''. On the other hand, modern scientific technology have damaged our environment and posed serious threats for the future development of science. All these facts and results put a big question-mark (?) on the grass-root level working of science. In fact, all scientific researches are based upon ordinary sense perception, which keeps the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. Basically, it is the observer -- the knower -- which makes perception possible. Astonishingly, the knower -- human mind -- is not included in our scientific theories. One should not forget human-being (human mind) is a part of nature and an essential component of our observations, so it's inclusion in scientific theories is must in order to recover modern science from the drastic state of trauma.
Quantum theory has been proved as an outstanding mystery in modern science. The predictions of science have turned out to be probabilistic. The principle of determinism has failed. For systems like weather, earthquakes, rolling dices etc... and of course human behavior it has proved impossible, for science, to describe a state of the system accurately for a long time into the future. Moreover, modern cosmology has to rely on philosophical assumptions. It is argued -- by taking into account of the views of learned scientists and philosophers -- that modern science can never explain everything and it is a hard fact to discover the ``Theory Of Everything''. On the other hand, modern scientific technology have damaged our environment and posed serious threats for the future development of science. All these facts and results put a big question-mark (?) on the grass-root level working of science. In fact, all scientific researches are based upon ordinary sense perception, which keeps the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. Basically, it is the observer -- the knower -- which makes perception possible. Astonishingly, the knower -- human mind -- is not included in our scientific theories. One should not forget human-being (human mind) is a part of nature and an essential component of our observations, so it's inclusion in scientific theories is must in order to recover modern science from the drastic state of trauma.
However, the observations encompassed by classical physics excludes the observer from the physical reality, yet the deep-down understandung of nature --{\it the quantum theory}-- can not avoid the intrusion of observer into the measurement process. Indeed, the quantum physics experiments have knocked the door of a new paradigm: in which science of consciousness is an important axiom. In the present work, it is argued --by taking into account of the views of learned scientists and philosophers-- that modern science is incomplete and lacking something in the basic understanding of nature \cite{r}. Classical physics has failed to explain the dynamics of the microscopic particles, eventhough modern scientific researches are based upon the prejudice posed by classical physics: keeping the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer --human mind. One should not forget that human-being is a part of nature and human mind is an essential component of our observations. Basically, it is the observer --the consciousness-- which makes perception possible. The working of human mind must be included in our scientific theories. In fact, human free will is an illusion and nothing in the entire universe (with life) lies outside the domain of science and determinism.
Abstract I think of the development of physics as the growth of relativism. Every increase in relativism is an increase in our understanding of the complexity of the observer, of a number of possible observers, and of the influence of the observer upon the phenomenon. Quantum theory is only the latest stage in this growth of relativism. It is by no means the end of our understanding of the importance of the observer or the experimenter. In fact, I think it’s no longer proper to speak of the observer because that still carries the old implication of someone who observes from outside the phenomenon without changing it. In quantum theory we only have experimenters, people who do things. One of the lessons of relativism is that one should be very careful about assuming the existence of things that in principle cannot be seen. Evidently one of these things is the universe. It’s a physical impossibility, as a matter of principle, for any experimenter to have complete information about the universe. Every experimenter begins by ignoring large parts of the universe, namely, himself or herself. You turn your attention to something by omitting from your attention much more. It is quite possible that the universe will go the way of absolute time or absolute state. I don’t think we have reached the end of this growth in relativism.
Scientific realism holds that the objects of scientific knowledge exist independently of the minds or activities of scientists and those scientific theories are true of that objective world. This is antithetical to the posits of quantum physics, a body of knowledge taken as the seal of the sciences because of its incredible feat, which emphasizes observer created reality, and to that end subjective and probabilistic understanding of realities. Given this background, we contend that, if the thesis of scientific realism were to be taken as sacrosanct, nature would have remained somewhat unfavourable since nobody would have dared to ‘create’ reality other than those originally imposed by nature. And to the quantum physicist, the resort to probabilistic conception of reality is an obvious indication that nature in its dynamism is uncanny and still has billions of tricks for mankind.
“I refute it thus!” Samuel Johnson famously dismissed Bishop George Berkeley's argument for the unreality of matter by kicking a large stone (Boswell, 1823). In the light of modern physics, however, Johnson's simple reasoning evaporates. Apparently solid matter is revealed, on closer inspection, to be almost all empty space, and the particles of which matter is composed are themselves ghostly patterns of quantum energy, mere excitations of invisible quantum fields, or possibly vibrating loops of string living in a ten-dimensional space–time (Greene, 1999). The history of physics is one of successive abstractions from daily experience and common sense, into a counterintuitive realm of mathematical forms and relationships, with a link to the stark sense data of human observation that is long and often tortuous. Yet at the end of the day, science is empirical, and our finest theories must be grounded, somehow, “in reality.” But where is reality? Is it in acts of observation of the world made by human and possibly non-human observers? In records stored in computer or laboratory notebooks? In some objective world “out there”? Or in a more abstract location? THE GROUND OF REALITY When a physicist performs an experiment, he or she interrogates nature and receives a response that, ultimately, is in the form of discrete bits of information (think of “yes” or “no” binary answers to specific questions), the discreteness implied by the underlying quantum nature of the universe (Zeilinger, 2004).