The Post Quantum God
This article is
a sequel of my earlier article “The God of Contradictions”. It would be easy to
appreciate it after reading the first one.
The science took
lead in attacking the God. And then on being satisfied, after Nietzsche’s
declaration regarding the death of the God, the scientists went ahead in the
pursuit of giving this world a science suited God which would be well tested on
all scientific laws and principles. Almost all scientists tried to defy or
define the God. Some of them tried to carve it out of the physical material or
obtain it as a product of some difficult chemical reaction.
In the early
nineteenth century when the science was coming to its juvenility they concluded
that the matter was everything; and the matter was only the thing which
existed. Subsequently Einstein in the early twentieth century made some
correction and declared that it is not the matter only rather it is the
totality of the matter and energy which is conserved. He found that the matter
and energy were inter-convertible. It was in fifties of the twentieth century
when Schrödinger with the help of his quantum cat made an announcement
regarding the peaceful demise of the “Matter”. He said proudly that the matter
existed no more.
On another
front, during the life time of “matter”, Heisenberg brought the wave theory and
told about the wave nature of matter. He said that the matter existed only in
the form of wave. It was against the Newton
It was the first
time in the history of science when the contradiction was accepted as an
essential part of a scientific theory. However the future was more fertile for
the contradictions and probabilities to grow in scientific theories. In the
quantum era of sciences, it appeared that the whole universe is nothing more
than throwing a dice. The theory of probability prevailed on all scientific
results and outcomes. If two fundamental particles were to interact with each
other their results were only a probability. Nothing was sure and certain.
The theory
involved so many contingencies and probabilities that even Einstein could not
digest the idea of the existence of the universe only as a probability. According
to him "God reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists". He was not easy to listen from the quantum
physicists that the existence of the universe is nothing but a chance.
On the experimental
level the quantum theory provided new vistas of possibilities. When an electron
interacted with a positron (an anti particle of the electron) both of them
disappeared and only energy particles (called neutrinos) remained there.
Similarly when two neutrinos were brought near each other, a pair of an
electron and a positron appeared in the vacuum. This is called a pair
production in quantum physics.
It shows that
the existence is not the only thing existing in this universe but its potential
is also equally important. It is the potential which comes into the existence
and it is the existence which disappears and reduces itself into a potential
(i.e. a potential to exist). Remember here that the potential (in the form of
neutrinos) comes into the existence (pair of the electron and the positron) and
the existence goes into inexistence and becomes a potential. Potential is only
a possibility; it is only a probability. It does not exist, it is inexistent
but it can give birth to the existence. The science is saying that the
existence and the non existence are two aspects of the same thing. They both
are inter-convertible.
Take a short
pause. Our language is being stretched to its maximum to explain this concept
of existence and the non existence. It is against all the arguments that the
existence and non-existence both are the same. Arguments fail to elaborate how
a thing can be existent and non-existent at the same time; how an existing
thing can be an in-existing thing. How these two can correspond to the same …..
(thing, existence, matter, object, contradiction, non-existence nothing is
suitable here as a word). This is again a limitation of the language to
describe the world. Languages create a contradiction when they are used to
describe the world. (And the Learned ones argue about the contradictions in
describing the God which is all encompassing; reference to my article “The God
of Contradictions”).
One thing that
surfaces here is that the languages are only for serving the routine purposes.
When used to describe the existence or non-existence of the God they start
giving problems. So whenever someone is to tell something about the existence,
the world or the God or the essence or the Absolute, all details cannot be
verbally communicated. Any communication with verbal expressions is bound to
create contradictions. To be free from contradiction it must be consisting of
some non verbal component of communication.
The problem with
this non verbal component of communication is with its communicability. How one
would communicate that non verbal component of communication to others.
Probably it cannot be. So the recipient would have to be subjective to that
extent. He has to develop his own methodology to understand what was infact
communicated through that non verbal component of communication. It is quite
possible that the transmitter is transmitting something different from what is
being received by the recipient.
This non verbal
component of communication would always form the basis of the knowledge (if
this word may be used for the knowledge) of the absolute or the God or the
existence and it will be subjective only. Therefore any absolute knowledge will
have an essential subjective component. Without this subjective component a
knowledge cannot be complete; it would not be able to comprehend the
contradictions involved and also the probabilities of existence.
For those who do
not find this complexity of the subject very interesting, we go back to the
interesting level. There are some who say that the love is God. There are some
others who say that the truth is God. Still there are some more who say that
the beauty is God. You are not at liberty to say that it is not God. It is the
subjectivity of the person concerned which determines what is God and it is
this subjectivity only which further determines as what is understood by the
God. It is again possible that the picture of God in your mind may be entirely
different from the picture of God in other’s mind. There is no objective scale
to measure the attributes of the God so as to broadcast them for all.
If for you the
love is God, even then you cannot determine objectively the nature of the love
and the God, which is acceptable to all others. So leave defining the love and
the God. Be the love so to be the God. You cannot know the God. For if you
claim to know the God then it would be attacked by subjective arguments
regarding your knowledge and you would not be in a position to explain it as it
would be containing a non verbal component of subjectivity. This non verbal
component of subjectivity is incapable of being expressed. So don’t know what
cannot be known.
The God, the
Existence, the Essence, the Absolute etc cannot be established by the science
or the reason or the arguments or any other objective criterion. Ultimately it
has to have some subjective component of comprehension. Here again a danger has
crept into. Someone may argue that The God, the Existence, the Essence, the
Absolute etc all depend on the comprehension and hence if one, say an insane,
does not comprehend them, would it be the end of The God, the Existence, the
Essence, the Absolute etc.
It is submitted
by the author please do not lead the verbal arguments. They do not correspond
to the reality in entirety.
Be love and attain
the Godship. If for you the truth is the God then be the truth and attain the
Godship. If the beauty is the God for you then do not try to know the beauty,
better is to be the beauty to rise to the Godship. Do not know the God, do not
try to establish the God argumentatively it is contradictory. Be the God,
attain the Godship.
No comments:
Post a Comment