Witnessing the past via a live telecast! Monday, Oct 8 2007

This article has been moved to the location below

Witnessing the past via a live telecast!

4 Responses »

 

Human = Computer God? Sunday, Sep 2 2007

This article has been moved to the location below

Human = Computer God?

10 Responses »

 

A God who never was! Monday, Aug 6 2007

This article has been moved to

A God who never was!

5 Responses »

 

The process of scientific findings Sunday, Jul 22 2007

Science

Science is an art of searching for the truth.

A truth that could be used for a better understanding of the functioning of this universe, documented in the form of scientific knowledge.

A truth that could be used to improve the quality of life on this planet, implemented in the form of technology.

The Process

So how does this art proceed?

Well, a scientist has two paths for a scientific nirvana.

The first path is that of theoretical science where the scientist thinks, thinks and thinks. More like a spiritual master who searches within himself for the truth. Then neurons and dendrites inside the scientist’s brain exchange millions of signals with a hope of finding an answer.

The second is that of experimental science where the scientist tests, tests and tests. The actual search takes place in the physical world, where all possible sensible combinations are tried out.

Now, to be honest, the above two paths are pretty idealistic. A Scientific fact finding process cannot be purely theoretical or purely experimental. It has to be a combination of the both.

So the actual two paths followed are as below.

The first path is the one which relies on the theoretical science, but at the same time makes use of available experimental evidence. All theoretical physics comes under this category.

The second path is the one which relies on the experimental science, but at the same time make use of available theoretical science. All experimental physics comes under this category.

It is very difficult to succeed in the first path. But if you succeed, it is almost sure that your scientific theory is unquestionable. The key to the success in the first path is how well you think, being out of any scientific prejudice.

Scientific Prejudice

What is scientific prejudice? Believing in a scientific fact without verifying its validity is what I call a scientific prejudice. People believed that if one second passes on earth and during that one second if we look at a neutron star, then the amount of time passed on that neutron star is also one second! Einstein came and proved otherwise! He proved that mass slows down time! To prove that he had to first come out of the prejudice of one second here is one second everywhere else in this universe!

The Cause of Scientific Prejudice

There is an interesting concept in the ancient Indian vedic culture called Shruthi and Smrithi. Shruthi is said to be the true knowledge, while Smrithi is what people CURRENTLY THINK to be the true knowledge! Vedas say that, when people who know Smrithi (or who know shruthi only partially) start asking more and more questions and try to find answers for the same, they will finally find the Shruthi !

Similarly, the science that we know today is what WE THINK is true today. In the west 500 years back people thought Earth was the center of the universe. That was the definition given by the then science. Aristotle thought new organisms were created out of nowhere! Some other scientist thought Sun to be a burning ball of fire and calculated that Sun would burn all its fuel and extinguish in another 5000 years! Somebody else said that if we travel in a vehicle faster than sound then we will die due to breathing problems. Other people then believed that Earth does not move!

That was science in those days. Today it is not. The science of today (Smruthi) is much more closer to the actual science (Shruthi) than it was 500 years back!

Another 100 years later some of today’s science might be proved wrong!

The Scientific fact finding path

The key to overcome scientific prejudice is to understand whether a fact that we know is scientific shruthi or smrithi ! It is easier said than done!

My suggestion for the easiest way to prove a smrithi, that is, to prove that a scientific theory is THE ULTIMATE TRUTH is to try to disprove it in every possible way. A true scientific theory will be proved right in all the efforts that are trying to disprove it. And if we find even one proof in the effort that disproves the theory, then, well, the theory then has to be thrown in the huge dustbin of abandoned theories.

More Experiments or More Theory?

Coming back to the two paths for a scientific nirvana,

Theoretical path is suitable if performing experiments is not possible. For instance one cannot do an experiment about how an actual blackhole forms, so we need to theorize the formation of a blackhole and at the most do a computer simulation of it..

Experimental path is suitable if very little data is available about the issue in question. For instance, about the evolution of life. A lot of scrambled data is available. The key is to try to find as many fossils as possible and then try to solve the jig saw puzzle as to who came first? an amoeba or an euglena or a virus? or if something new, if at all we happen to find it later some day..

So in theoretical science we first come out with a theory and then test it in the universal lab.. In an experimental science we first do experiments and then try to interpret the results to build a theory..

As I said earlier, theoretical science is very difficult as one needs to do a lot of thought experiments and has to be free of all scientific prejudices or the so called common sense to find out the truth that exists beyond our current perception.

The only two such great people I know in modern history, whose most theoretical findings have been undisputed till to date are, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking

4 Responses »

 

The Evolution of God Wednesday, Jul 11 2007

This article has been moved to http://hitxp.com/sci/11072007.htm

One Response »

 

Darwin’s theory is only about adaptation not evolution Sunday, Jun 3 2007

Never allow your mind to get prejudiced about an idea or a thought. The key to really understand things is to have an open mind. If what you have been believeing ever since your birth is found to be false, enquire into it with an open mind and if all evidences point towards it being false, immediately give up your childhood belief.

Do not stick to your old belief inspite of knowing it is false, and do not try to find evidence which will prove that it is true, just for the sake of proving it true.
On the contrary, the best way to prove something right is always to try to prove it wrong! In this way you will always strengthen your beliefs because you would have tried to prove it wrong in n number of ways and it should pass the test every time.

I hate when people start arguments based on prejudice. I do not argue with such people. I am not here to change anybody, I am here to increase my knowledge. Those who stick to their prejudice, to their egos and blind faith are just making fools of themselves.

Let us talk about evolution. When I was first taught Darwin’s theory of evolution I actually liked that idea. But then no prejudice please. Upon enquiry I had a doubt. Life started evolving from carbon and other raw materials available on earth. Well, in that case all these raw materials as we know do not come under the definition of life. So as things evolved where did LIFE exactly start? Was it when the first cell was formed? Or was it when the first amino acid formed? Was it when the first protein molecule formed?

As I studied further, I came across viruses which are defined as intermediate stage between life and lifeless chemicals. This is because viruses cannot reproduce on their own. They need a host to multiply! One of the basic properties of life is the ability to multiply on its own by reproducing. So viruses do not fit into this category unless the definition includes a host cell!

So as I continued my thoughts on this I am yet to find a satisfactory answer to whether some intelligent designer designed life or was it purely natural evolution with random mutations.

But I am sure that darwin’s theory cannot account for the formation of complex life forms. I feel darwin’s theory is right only within its own domain and the problem exists because it has been extended outside its domain as something which explains the entire evolution of life on this planet.

Even the evolution of a simplest of the simple proteins from random combination of amino acids is not possible, even looking at it as a probabilistic chance in terms of earth’s age! Not possible even in terms of universal age known to us!

Then all these proteins have to assemble together, form sub cellular entities, then cells.. looks like proteins were already intelligent Not possible. Then DNA, genes, replication, repair mechanism, translation… No way possible that it evolved on its own, unless and until there is a totally different type of operational procedures at molecular level, which I dont think is the case..

If we say that we evolved merely from random mutations, then I would like to quote Einstein but in a different context as “God does not play dice”

The domain of the darwin’s theory as I think is adaptation of life, NOT evolution of life. Darwin’s theory explains the process of natural adaptation very well, the most suitable design will survive in an environment. Like for instance consider the birds of gallapagus which he found. Some have soft beaks and some have strong beaks. During a drought the soft beaks birds do not get fruits to feed on, while the strong beak birds can break open the shells of dried fruits from earlier seasons and survive on it. So in this case the soft beaked birds will not survive.

So what darwin’s theory explains is the survival and adaptation within a species. But there is no way that it explains the evolution of a completely different species from one species. Nor there is any way that is explains the very basic evolution of life where mitochondria, lysosomes, DNA etc form on their own(?!) and then form a cell, and then cells group together to form multi cellular life.. all this does not look scientific enough. Its not logical, its highly probabilistic. And as I have said in my earlier articles, this definitely does not explain the creation (or evolution) of new species. It is simply impossible for chromosome numbers to change and new genes to be formed by a genetic mutation and for opposite sex individuals of the same species to be formed at the same time so that they reproduce to continue the new species!

So in a nutshell, darwin’s theory only explains the adaptation of a particular species or the survivability of a particular species. But it does not explain Evolution of life, there is simply not enough data to support this.

Probably Darwin’s theory is just a subset of the real theory of creation/evolution of life on this planet.

12 Responses »

 

An Evolutionary Crisis Saturday, May 19 2007

Suddenly got a doubt today while thinking about archeopteryx. Archeopteryx is the fossil of a creature which is said to have been in a transition phase from dinosaurs to birds.

If life evolved as darwin had said say from one species to another, then where are the other fossils of intermediate species? Why havent we found any ?

How can a fish lead to a frog ? by mutation say the evolutionists. Well, mutations are most of the time harmful and will kill the mutated form. For argument’s sake let us consider that one in a million mutations is not harmful and results in some new species. Still, I dont understand how one mutation in a gene would create a new species with different number of chromosomes ! Well known mathematician and physicist Fred Hoyle says ‘The chance that higher life forms have been evolved by chance is comparable with the chance that a Tornado sweeping a junk yard might assemble a boeing-747 from the materials available’ !

To quote Einstein again, but in the context of random mutations, I think “God does not play dice”

Even then, for a moment let us consider that ‘mutations gave rise to new species’. Then my question is, for that new species to survive, there has to be a reproductive counterpart! Do mutations occur in pairs in a male and a female in the same place, with the same mutation resulting in a male and a female of some new species !! And those two adam and eve of the new species fall in love with each other

Will be interested if somebody can prove me wrong and explain how mutations cause new species to form and evolve.

Why havent we observed any new species forming in our known human history ? Evolutionists say it takes millions of years for a new species to evolve. Well, I am confused, as far as I know mutations take just one generation to be formed. Where did these millions of years come from? Then if we assume that long periods are required for many mutations to appear for a new species to be formed, then what are the chances that all those next generation mutations will be useful (or atleast not harmful) every time, before creating a new species altogether ? And remember that these mutations should occur in the same successive generations belonging to the original mutating creature, I mean the chain should be maintained. In other words, if a fish mutates a bit today, then its children, their children, etc in the same generation line should mutate till finally some new species occurs. Now what are the chances that mutations occur for the same offsprings every time to maintain continuity? Doesnt it seem preplanned ?

Well, a more sensible argument would be to think that same mutations occur within a group of creatures, say among 20-25 of them due to some external factor. Then the chances are high that the mutations would be carried on to next generations for further enhancement. This kind of argument looks more logical. But then the question is what is that which causes mutations in such a large number of creatures at the same time. In that case this has to be some external factor, like say for ex nuclear radiation. It cant be internal accidental mutation in some random creature. What are those external reasons then that have caused so many millions of species to evolve ?

I am not denying about natural selection. Where within a species itself some simple genetic mutations take place. For instance there are those humans ( mostly from the african countries) who have lactose intolerance as they dont have the gene which generates lactase anzyme which is used to digest lactose sugar found in the milk. That is the reason these people cannot drink milk. Probably as civilizations progressed and some humans started rearing cows, the natural selection process created lactase manufacturing gene. Even here I have a doubt that how genes come to know that some new gene is required, or that some change is required in existing genetic structure ? But there is a possibility that such level of intelligence is present in our genes. If we can software which can accustom to situations, I think our genes are much more superior than the software we write, and hance do have these abilities to adopt and change.

But what I am finding difficult is the argument that natural selection is vertical. In the sense dogs come out of fishes, monkeys comes out of dogs, humans come out of the ancestors of today’s monkeys. I cannot blindly believe this argument, unless and until somebody provides a convincing proof. It sounds so illogical that a new species result from the mutations in an existing species. For the simple reason that the amount of mutations required for such a transition are so large that it simply cant be random and coincidental every time. Even chromose numbers differ from species to species. How does a new species get more or less chromosomes, while the mutations are limited to genes inside these chromosomes ?

If you are intelligent enough to point me to the existence of archeopteryx, well its a real bird, not a transition. It had wings, yes. But thats just an external feature. More importantly it had a larger brain like today’s birds as opposed to small sized brain of dinosaurs. It had lungs designed like modern birds ie circular lungs which do not contract and expand, unlike the reptile or mammalian lungs which do expand and contract as they breathe the air in and out. Finally, the best of all, Archeopteryx fossil dates to 150 million years AFTER the earliest known bird to us today!! How many evolutionists know this fact? The earliest known bird fossil, Jinfengopteryx, found in China is older than Archeopteryx! Obviously evolution of a new species cannot start when the species is already existing

Natural selection can create simple changes. But for sensible intelligent complex changes which create a species, it doesnt make any sense as the very nature of evolution is based on random mutations.

Now dont think I am a creationist who is talking about God having created universe in 7 or 10 days, and that he did it some mere 2000-3000 years back. That for me is a bigger nonsense, only a stupid person who is blind by faith, who accepts no reason but cares only for his egos and prejudice can accept this foolish argument. Even for some intelligent being to create life that exists on earth, he/she has to first start with prokaryotes, then single cells with nuclei, then simple multi cellulars, and then slowly start designing more and more complex creatures, much like evolution

Science has a greater proof that God did not do it, atleast not in some 7-10 days, and definitely not some mere 2000 or 3000 years ago. Note that dinosaurs roamed on earth from 285 million years ago to 65 million years ago and humans were not there during this entire period. So if God created us in 7 or 10 days then he must have done it after dinousars became extinct. Then the question is who created dinosaurs and the universe before them ? Well, we need to ask this question to dinousaurs. Probably even among the dinousaurs some support evolution, some again find resort in god, and some simply dont care

For the creationists who say that God created Life, I have questions too. Which God created life? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? If Muslim, then where was the mulsim God before 500 AD? If Christian, then where was the Christian God before BC? If Hindu, then well, it has no founder…
Then there is another question. Who created God? If nobody created God, then, did he evolve on his own out of nothing?

I prefer Science to Faith because in Science I can question things, where as faith doesnt allow me to, and I cant simply believe things without sound logic. I find it more interesting being in a library than in a temple. Blind faith is only for those whose brains don’t have any grey matter..

Now if I am not a creationist, and at the same time have my own doubts about evolution, then what are my views ? Well, I just wanna know the truth. Truth is my view. Satyameva Jayathe – truth always triumphs. If somebody can provide some convincing evidence on either of the sides, OR if you dont have evidence then some convincing argument which atleast sounds sensible, I will be a happy man.

As of now, I feel that some aliens came to earth and created the species here as part of some large scale genetic experiment. Given my current knowledge this sounds more logical than God or evolution

5 Responses »