සයිටම් රැල්ල පසුපස එන සුනාමිය

 සයිටම් රැල්ල පසුපස එන සුනාමිය

ජනමාධ්‍ය සම්බන්ධයෙන් මට එතරම් පැහැදීමක් නැති බව පළමුවෙන් කිව යුතුයි. කාලයකට පසු පුවත්පතකට ලිපි ලිවීමට තීරණය කෙළේ මා ළඟින් ඇසුරු කරන කිහිප දෙනකුගේ ආරාධනය පරිදි බවත් කිව යුතුයි. අද මම සමාජයෙන් එක්තරා දුරකට වෙන් වී සිටිමි .එයට හේතු ගණනාවක් වෙයි. ඒ හේතු කවරේදැයි කීම අනවශ්‍ය යැයි සිතමි. මගේ බොහෝ අදහස් සමාජයට නොදිරවන බව පමණක් කීමට අවශ්‍ය වෙයි. ජනමාධ්‍ය බොහෝ විට රැල්ල අනුව යන බව දනිමි. අද රැල්ල අනුව නම් සයිටම් ආයතනයට අප විරුද්ධ විය යුතුයි. එහෙත් සයිටම් හා නිදහස් අධ්‍යාපනය ගැන බොහෝ දෙනාට ඇති වැටහීම මට නැත්තේ මගේ වරදක් නිසා විය හැකියි. එහෙත් වැඩි දෙනකු වෛද්‍ය ආඥාපනත හෝ විශ්වවිද්‍යාල පනත හෝ කියවා නැති බවත් පැහැදිලියි.  පහුගිය දා සයිටම් ගැන පළ කෙරුණු අභියාචනා තීන්දුව කී දෙනෙක් කියවා ඇත් ද?

Reason, Experience and Prathyaksha - nonpublished

Prof. Carlo Fonseka in his parting article claims that I do not understand multiple meanings of the word reason. “In his response to my claim, Prof. Nalin says:’What Prof. Fonseka tries to say is that evidence of senses of human beings is the deciding factor and not the soundness of human reasoning. However, he himself ends that paragraph with "therefore there is reason to accept the truth of the theory of relativity". (The Island, Sept 8) Thus Prof. Nalin is asserting that by using the word ‘reason’ in the preceding sentence, I am being inconsistent about my claim concerning the primacy of sensory experience as the test of truth. Anyone who knows the multiple meanings of the word ‘reason’ will grant that the word ‘reason’ in the phrase "therefore there is reason to accept the truth of the theory of relativity" refers to the evidence of the senses, and not to the exercise of pure reason.” However, this is what I had said in my article of 8th September. “What Prof. Fonseka tries to say is that evidence of senses of human beings is the deciding factor and not the soundness of human reasoning. However, he himself ends that particular paragraph with ‘therefore there is reason to accept the truth of the theory of relativity’. In any event the Theory of General Relativity has failed to explain what is called dark energy and some other phenomena I have mentioned in my previous articles. Further Prof. Fonseka could not resist the temptation to quote Russell: ‘Before tackling Einstein’s law, it is as well to convince ourselves, on logical grounds, that Newton’s law of gravitation cannot be quite right.’ Russell mentions two things here. Firstly that Newton’s Law of Gravitation cannot be quite right. Thus if somebody says that Einstein incorporated Newton’s gravitation theory then the latter has incorporated a theory that is not quite right. Secondly Russell talks of convincing of oneself that Newton’s theory cannot be quite right on logical grounds. Thus Prof. Fonseka is not consistent in his statements and supporting statements.” Prof. Fonseka conveniently ignores Russell’s remark on convincing oneself on logical grounds that Newton’s gravitation cannot be quite right, which he himself had quoted. Prof. Fonseka while ignoring Russell on convincing oneself that Newton’s gravitation cannot be quite right on logical grounds and not on so called empirical grounds had said that there was reason to accept the truth of theory of relativity.

The so called empirical evidence is nothing but a reason for Prof. Fonseka to accept the so called truth of relativity. It is not pure reason for the simple reason that there is nothing called pure reason in a Kantian sense or otherwise. Similarly there are no pure empirical grounds on which one comes to conclusions. All deductions starting from “if A=B and B=C, then A=C” are inductions and in that sense all so called reasoning is based on induction that cannot be called rational. Western Philosopher Hume did not believe causality purely on empirical evidence and in western philosophy problems of this sort cannot be solved. There are no sense perceptions without conceptions and Prof. Fonseka, how much he tries, cannot show that he believes in the theory of relativity because of evidence of pure sense experience. Firstly there is no pure sense experience as all perceptions are conception laden just as much so called facts are theory laden, and secondly causality in western thinking is based on induction. People believe in sense experience due to repeats and induction. Induction which has no rational basis as such ironically plays a big role in reasoning. It is hilarious to see so called empiricists rejecting sense experience on the grounds that appearance cannot be true and then testing deductions of theories that people have constructed, using their senses based on nothing but appearances. I have explained some of these in my latest book “Batahira Vidyava, Arsenic saha Deviyo” and Prof. Fonseka could gain something at least in his old age by reading the book.

Prof. Fonseka says “Prof. Nalin has unequivocally declared that by virtue of the culture into which he was born, his approach to life and the world is that of a Sinhala, Theravada Buddhist. In other words his credo is the religion of his birth”. I have never said anything equivalent of what Prof. Fonseka ascribes to me. This could have been the case if I had had my religion of my parents as my Philosophy from childhood, though religion is different from philosophy and culture. However, I had been a Marxist, Scientist though people may claim that I failed to grasp the relevant disciplines, before I became a Theravada Buddhist for the second time having gone through an education in western science and Marxism. There are many ways to create knowledge other than through rationalism and empiricism and I subscribe to “Prathyaksha”, which is not sense perception as such. However I know that I am spiritually not advanced, and as said in the second part of Kalama Sutta which Prof. Fonseka ignored for many decades I believe in the “Prathyaksha” of my Vinnus. However, though not approved by Theravada Buddhism I also construct knowledge (theories, concepts etc.,), until I am advanced spiritually through “Bhavana”, based on the Sinhala Buddhist Chinthanaya relative to Sinhala Buddhist culture. It was theorizing that way we were able to convince many people in this country that the LTTE could be defeated with a non wavering political leadership. Incidentally we constructed our basic theory that knowledge (not merely western science) is created relative a culture based on a Chinthanaya though some who have been trained in western science try their best to ascribe it to some westerners. All theories whether they are constructed based in the Sinhala Buddhist Chinthanaya or Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya are mere stories which appear to be consistent with other theories “facts” etc.

(12/09/27)

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Incompleteness of Knowledge

Prof. Carlo Fonseka in his letter published on 1st September 2012 makes three statements which have to be replied before we discuss Gödel’s theorem and its implications as far as the theory of everything (ToE) is concerned. Let me begin with the statement regarding Dr. Leo Fernando. Prof. Fonseka states: “I dare to think that when Dr. Leo was flying safely from Colombo to London at a height of some 33,000 feet, he must have given thanks to the Almighty God of the Judaic Christian culture for the reliability of its so-called science. (You may care to know that in my view, the core truths of science e.g. the Earth orbits the Sun; organic evolution of living things; the structure of the DNA molecule, are totally independent of the culture of different human tribes.)” Whether Dr. Fernando thanks the Almighty or not, it does not disprove that human knowledge is created by human beings relative to a culture. In any event western science is not a product of the Christian Church (definitely not of the Catholic Church) but a product of Judaic Christian culture based on the Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya. Prof. Fonseka claims that in his view the so called truth of Earth orbiting the Sun is independent of the culture. There is a history of Earth orbiting the Sun and it is now well known that this was known in India before Copernicus is supposed to have “discovered” it. How the Indians knew it is not understood, but knowing that Budunvahanse had mentioned of thousands of Sakwalas long before the westerners came to “know” of galaxies in the twentieth century I am of the opinion that this knowledge was prathyaksha to Sammasambuddha without any theories or observations through telescopes. Copernicus and Galileo who were products of incipient Judaic Christian culture, though Catholics by religion, which was created by western modernity, only popularized this view without prathyaksha and faced the consequences resulting from the responses of the Catholic culture. The Catholic culture refused to believe that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe but the Judaic Christian Culture and its political hegemony could not be countered by Pope and the Cardinals. The Buddhist culture does not believe in organic evolution of living being and big bang which have been created in a Judaic Christian culture. I as a person living in the Sinhala Buddhist culture believe in Agganna Sutta and I have published a paper last year in a so called peer reviewed Chinese journal, which proposes a universe with Sanvatta and Vivatta Kalpa. However, I do not expect the westerners to believe my “theory”.

On Einstein’s theory of Gravitation Prof. Fonseka states: What settled the issue about the truth of relativity was not the soundness of human reasoning, but the evidence of our senses. On 29 May 1919 during an eclipse of the sun, the world’s leading astronomers including Sir Arthur Eddington tested Einstein’s prediction regarding the bending of light. The predicted displacement was 1.72 (seconds of arc); the observed displacement was 1.75 + or - .06. Thus the prediction was amply confirmed. In fact every single testable consequence of the theory of relativity hitherto examined has been confirmed. Therefore there is reason to accept the truth of the theory of relativity, until some observation contradicts it.” It has to be emphasised that when people talk of Einstein’s Gravitation, they do not mean a gravitational force and what is meant is his theory on space- time in the presence of matter and radiation. What Prof. Fonseka tries to say is that evidence of senses of human beings is the deciding factor and not the soundness of human reasoning. However, he himself ends that particular paragraph with “therefore there is reason to accept the truth of the theory of relativity”. In any event the Theory of General Relativity has failed to explain what is called dark energy and some other phenomena I have mentioned in my previous articles. Further Prof. Fonseka could not resist the temptation to quote Russell: "Before tackling Einstein’s law, it is as well to convince ourselves, on logical grounds, that Newton’s law of gravitation cannot be quite right." Russell mentions two things here. Firstly that Newton’s Law of Gravitation cannot be quite right. Thus if somebody says that Einstein incorporated Newton’s gravitation theory then the latter has incorporated a theory that is not quite right. Secondly Russell talks of convincing of oneself that Newton’s theory cannot be quite right on logical grounds.Thus Prof. Fonseka is not consistent in his statements and supporting statements.

This brings me to Gödel who found an inconsistency in the American Constitution which according to him could pave the way for a dictator. This became a problem when he was persuaded by Einstein and few others to apply for the American Citizenship. In any event whether Hawkins believes in a ToE or not Gödel’s incompleteness theorems say that a formal system that has some Arithmetic in it is neither complete nor consistent. It is not complete in the sense that there are true statements in the system within the meaning of its language that cannot be derived from the axioms of the system. Now a ToE has to be formulated within Theoretical Physics which is a formal system that incorporates some Arithmetic. Theoretical physics contains quantifiers such as for all, many etc., and I am of the view that Gödel’s theorem is applicable there. (I admit that I am no authority but I have reason to believe so.) This implies that even if a ToE is formulated there will be true statements within Theoretical Physics that cannot be derived from the ToE which is supposed to incorporate the four known interactions in Physics at present. These true statements within the meaning of Theoretical Physics either would have to be considered as new axioms arising out of new interactions hitherto unknown and a new ToE would be needed to incorporate these new interactions. It would lead to infinite regression It should be remembered that in the nineteenth century there were only two interactions known, namely Newton’s gravitation and electro magnetism, and that Einstein wasted his life after formulation of his General Relativity by trying to incorporate his General Relativity and Maxwell’s Electromagnetism.

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Gravitation, ToE and Prathyaksha

Prof. Carlo Fonseka in his article titled “what are things made of” has chosen three topics other than how he wanted to give up Medicine for Physics after listening to a lecture by Dr. Muthukumarana. I wish he did so by any means available at that time as we could have discussed these problems in Physics at a technical level. Instead we have to deal with popular literature such as “50 physics ideas you really need to know”. Joanne Baker the authour of the book has studied Physics at Cambridge as an undergraduate and has done her Ph. D. in Astrophysics at Sydney. Apparently her specialty is space and earth sciences, at Nature Magazine (not sure whether it is the Nature journal) according to Google but no mention has been made of Cosmology, High Energy Physics or General Relativity. Astrophysics is a very vast subject and it is not stated the area in which she has specialized. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation to accept Baker as an authority on Gravitation and General Relativity not because Prof. Fonseka has quoted her as an authority on this important question related to incorporation of gravitation into special relativity, but since I know that even so called authorities make mistakes. However, what I cannot understand is the following statement by Prof. Fonseka. “Prof. Nalin knows a great deal more mathematics and physics than I do and I will discuss such esoteric matters with him privately. The trouble is that I cannot make myself treat him as an unbiased authority on western scientific thought because he routinely dismisses it as "pattapal boru". My problem is that I am not in a position to decide how he would treat me when he discusses these matters with me privately. In any event these are not private matters, and I am biased to my views and not an authority in any subject. I wonder whether there are any unbiased authorities in any field.

Without being technical I will try to explain why Gravitation has not been incorporated to Special Relativity in the formulation of General Relativity, without attempting to quote authorities as in the Biblical tradition. Newton’s theory of gravitation talks of a force of attraction between any two particles in the universe. Apples and coconuts fall to the earth because of this force according to Newton. Now what is characteristic of this force is that near the earth all bodies such as apples, coconuts fall with the same acceleration irrespective of the masses of the particle. This is essentially what Galileo had observed in Pisa. If one were to drop objects in an accelerating rocket far away from massive bodies one would observe that those bodies move towards one’s feet with the same acceleration provided of course one’s feet and not the head, are on the floor of the rocket. The experimenter not knowing that he is on an accelerating rocket would come to the conclusion that something on the floor of the rocket is attracting all bodies towards it. This was a thought experiment that Einstein used to describe and the conclusion he came to was that the gravitational force experienced say on earth is the same as what is known as an inertial force experienced locally in a rocket moving with the relevant acceleration. To him gravitational force was a fictitious force imagined by observers who did not know that they were in accelerating frames of reference such as rockets and thought that they were in what are known as inertial frames of reference in which Newton’s Laws are said to be valid. Gravitational force is a fictitious force somewhat like the centrifugal force, and centrifugal forces are inertial forces, as any second year student studying Classical Mechanics would know. Prof. Fonseka may consult the Professor of Physics mentioned by him on centrifugal force.

In Newton’s inertial frames of reference an object accelerates when a force acts on it. In particular the objects accelerate under gravitational forces. In Einstein’s scheme there is no gravitational force, and so called freely falling bodies do not accelerate as there is no gravitational force. The space - time is “warped” by the presence of matter and radiation, and objects (test particles) move along what are known as geodesics in curved space- time “equivalent” of straight lines in Euclidean space. The theory of General Relativity, which I have studied though not at Cambridge or Sydney but at Peradeniya reading technical books on the subject on my own and at Sussex, describes space - time in the presence of matter and radiation, while the theory of special relativity describe space - time in the absence of matter and radiation. When the space – time is curved the geodesics become the equivalent of straight lines in Special Relativity. Gravitational force has been abolished in General Relativity and not incorporated and test particles move along geodesics without being accelerated.

On the big bang theory Prof. Fonseka I am afraid is wrong when he says matter came into existence at the big bang. Big bang is what is known as a singularity without an explanation within General theory of Relativity. Big bang is associated with “infinite” temperature and density of energy and on cooling this energy is converted in stages to elementary particles. In any event big bang has no explanation and it is conceptually not much different from the creation of the “world” by God. In either case there is creation without an explanation the only difference being the existence of a creator in one case. Big bang as I have said does not explain the interactions between particles, it describes the evolution of the universe in general. The so called theory of everything (ToE) is on interactions between particles and so far standard theory has incorporated what are known as the electromagnetic force, the weak force and the strong force. It has failed to incorporate general relativity. The string theory, which is not testable at present has also failed to combine Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity. In any event big bang is not a ToE though all the particles are found in the universe whose study comes under Cosmology. It is the interactions among particles that any ToE is supposed to describe. Electrostatics and Magneto statics existed separately before Faraday and Maxwell, and they were combined into one electromagnetic theory by Maxwell. Western Physicists have been trying to combine all the interactions into one grand theory and I would say this need to combine all into one stems from God theory, if I may call it a theory, of Judaic Christian culture. No knowledge is culture independent, and I will await the answer by Prof. Fonseka on ToE and Gödel’s Theorem.

I have never claimed that by what I “call the cognitive process of "prathyaksha" it is possible for one to comprehend intellectually all one really needs to know in life on Earth”. I depend on my prathyaksha as far as possible according to Kalama Sutta, and when I am not competent I depend on the prathyaksha of my Vinnus again according to Kalama Sutta. I practice this method as the so called empirical hypothetico-deductive methodology of so called science is nothing but model building or telling stories in the Judaic Christian culture. Gravitation cannot be felt by sense organs, and none of the examples cited by Prof. Fonseka such as making airplanes could claim that the stories in the background are correct or approaching “reality”. In certain cases they work up to a point but fails miserably after. These stories are “pattapal boru” conceptually, which work some times. The theory of gravitation is one of the biggest “pattapal boru” though it is taught to students. The Newtonian story does not explain the motion of the planets around the sun and though it has been falsified in whatever sense one can think of it is not discarded. It is the same with all civil engineering work which use flat Euclidean geometry, as according to General Relativity space – time is not flat. The theories, interpretations, concepts, observations etc., in so called science combine to give a consistent picture approximately within limits and that is all. Higgs Boson is not different from this scheme in the Judaic Christian culture, and one may say the belief in this scheme is religious if one does not distinguish between culture and religion.

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Has anybody seen the God Particle?

Prof. Carlo Fonseka published an article on 23rd July 2012 in “The Island” on “The God Particle” describing an answer he had given to “a very clever arts woman”. In that article he mentioned among other things the following: “To begin at the beginning, I told her that there are three ways in which we acquire scientific knowledge. The first is by direct observation through our five senses, that is to say by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. The second is by indirect observation through our senses using instruments such as telescopes, microscopes and spectroscopes. The third method is by using our brains to build models in our imagination of what we think might be true about something we cannot directly or indirectly observe through our senses.” He also said that “there is only one way that scientists use to test a model. They make testable predictions based on the model and checkout the accuracy of the predictions experimentally.” As an example of a model he referred to the atom at the end of the nineteenth century: “At that stage the standard model of the atom was a structure with a center called the nucleus (consisting of protons and neutrons) and electrons orbiting round the nucleus. This is like the popular model of the solar system with the sun at the center and the planets orbiting round it.” Referring to the Big Bang he said “In the 20th century scientists came to believe that about 14 billion years ago there was an explosion of pre-existing energy. This explosion is called the Big Bang. At that point, matter as we know it came into existence.” Finally on the Higgs Boson this is what he said. “Though its existence was predicted by Higgs in 1964, its existence was finally confirmed only this year.”

I was puzzled by all these and on 25th July, I asked Prof. Fonseka whether he believed that the God Particle exists, and mentioned that “What the western Physicists at CERN have done is to interpret certain photographs they had obtained in their big collider to claim that the photos show some characteristics of a particle that Peter Higgs thought gives mass to the other particles. It is only a story and is not different from Newtonian gravitation that “explained” how the earth moves round the sun. Does Prof. Fonseka believe that Newtonian gravitation exists? The model of an atom with particles going round the nucleus is Rutherford’s old hat as according to the new model the quantum particles do not travel along paths or trajectories.” From his reply on 7th August it is clear that Prof. Fonseka has not seen the God Particle but he goes by some of his “Vinnus” (roughly people who are knowledgeable) the western scientists at CERN. This is somewhat in accordance with what I call the second part of Kalama Sutta and I am happy about it though I have problems with the “Vinnus” of Prof. Fonseka. It has to be stated that even the “Vinnus” have not seen the “God Particle” through direct or indirect observations, the way we mortals see desks and chairs through our senses. As I have said in my previous article the “Vinnus” have observed certain tracks on photographic plates, which they interpret as the Higgs Boson. These tracks are interpreted to exhibit certain characteristics of the Higgs Boson as predicted theoretically. What has to be emphasized is that there are no sacred facts and the facts are theory laden. No perception is independent of conception and we see the world the way construct it. Can somebody think of a perception or so called fact independent of conception? All theories are models or stories that have been constructed in order to “explain” what are called “facts”. As long as the stories and observations taken as a whole are consistent they are believed by the western scientists. This is in contrast to “prathyaksha” which should not be translated as sensory perceptions. It is funny to see the western scientists who do not consider observations as reality, constructing models to explain reality and test them with nothing but observations that do not constitute reality.

On Gravitation, Prof. Fonseka exhibiting his knowledge says: “His (Einstein’s) theory of Special Relativity published in 1905 established the equivalence mass and energy in the famous equation E = mc2. In 1915, by incorporating gravity into his Special Relativity, he revolutionized our view of space and time. If I have understood it correctly, the theory of general relativity can explain everything that Newtonian gravitation can explain plus such things as how rays of light from a star are bent when they go past a massive body like the sun. The current standard model postulates four fundamental forces, of which one is gravity.” Einstein did not incorporate gravity into the theory of special relativity though Prof. Fonseka seems to believe so. Former discarded Newton’s story of gravitation, contradicting “facts”, and constructed a new story of space - time that is determined by matter and radiation. This theory talks of an abstract concept called space -time curvature that cannot be observed directly or indirectly, and apples fall or take certain paths due to this curvature and not due to a gravitational force. The approximations of the deductions of Einstein’s theory incorporate deductions of Newtonian Gravitation Theory but that does not imply that General Theory of Relativity constructed using Manifolds, Differential Geometry, Tensor analysis etc., incorporates Newton’s Theory of Gravitation. The two theories are worlds apart so to say conceptually. For example in Newtonian Theory space and time are independent entities that could exist without matter and radiation, while in General Relativity space –time is determined by what is known as the energy – momentum tensor. Similarly, as I have mentioned the current model of the atom is conceptually very much different from Rutherford atom.

The current standard model does not postulate four forces including Gravity contrary to what Prof. Fonseka seems to believe. The standard model which is a Quantum Field Theory tries to explain the interactions among “particles” and has failed to incorporate General Relativity. It does not predict Dark energy or Dark Matter and is weak in many other areas. Western Physicists are toying with other theories, models or stories such as string theorywith extra dimensions, super symmetries etc. Prof. Fonseka says that “Big Bang theory is the nearest thing science has to offer by way of a theory of everything.” Oh no, the western Physicists have other ideas when they talk of theory of everything (ToE). It is not based on Big Bang, and they are interested in a theory that is an improvement of the standard model. However my question was “Could he explain how a theory of everything tallies with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, assuming of course that western Physics incorporates Arithmetic?”, which Prof. Fonseka has completely ignored. It must also be pointed out that the Big Bang is a singularity in space –time that has no explanation and that contrary to the statement “This explosion is called the Big Bang. At that point, matter as we know it came into existence” in Prof. Fonseka’s article of 23rd July at least some matter as we “know” today took some time, however minute it may be, to come into existence. He says referring to Big Bang mistakenly as a ToE and to a statement by Prof. Green that it seems to him that humankind’s quest for a ToE is still a dream. For him “it is a dream that will surely come true”. The self proclaimed materialist is an idealist dreamer. Incidentally does he include Sinhala Buddhists who are not interested in a ToE also in the “humankind” referred to? Prof. Fonseka quotes the following in his last article. “Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the greatest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer.” Prof. Fonseka has failed to answer my questions, but it does not make him a wise man though I am certainly a fool for continuing to ask him fundamental questions in Physics and Philosophy.

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

The existence of objects - I

Mr. Upali Gamakumara referring to what he calls my reply to Prof. Carlo Fonseka states that an average person may go haywire reading it. It may be so as the average person has been taught by the western educational system to think in a particular way which has become the so called standard way today. However, Mr. Gamakumara says that sometimes he values my ideas and I am thankful to him for his compliment. In any event I was only responding to Prof. Fonseka’s article with some questions. Basically Mr. Gamakumara queries my views on existence of “objects” and says if we do not “accept the existence of particles or objects, then all what Buddha has preached on ‘good’ and ‘bad’ becomes null and void”. In order to answer the queries of Mr. Gamakumara it is necessary to give a summary of my philosophy which is based on Buddhism.

The materialists starting with the Greeks in the west, and the Dravyavadins in Bharat, in general attempted to reduce all phenomena to a materialist base. The Buddhist idealists in the form of Vinnavadins and the Greek idealists on the other hand wanted to show that the mind was supreme, and that the so called material world was the creation of the mind. We present a different approach, where the world as an observer “sees” is created by the observer due to “avidya” of anicca, dukka and anatta which could be “roughly translated” as ignorance of impermanence, suffering and soullessness.

We begin with the Theravada view that the “world” is anicca, dukka, anatta and sunya. However anicca and anatta are not concepts, and as such it is futile to attempt to translate them into English or any other language. Even in Pali they should be considered as non concepts that defy explanation using concepts or other words. Though the “world” is anicca, dukka, anatta and sunya, unlike in Madhyamikavada, sunya is not elevated to a concept with sunyata coming into the picture as a noun.

When it is said that anicca, dukka, anatta and sunya are not concepts it means that they cannot be grasped by the mind either in terms of other concepts or directly as an image formed in the mind. There are no perceptions of them and there are no citta rupa associated with them. Anicca should not be considered as non permanence, as while the latter is a concept that the mind can grasp, the former cannot be known by the mind. If “one” “grasps”, anicca, dukka, anatta then “one” attains Nibbana, and it is clear that knowing non permanence of “objects” is not sufficient to attain Nibbana.

There are two concepts that are important in any discussion on epistemology and ontology. Epistemology deals with knowledge while ontology is on existence. Though there are two branches called epistemology and ontology in western Philosophy, they are interwoven. The existence is not independent of knowledge of existence, in contrast to one of the ideas expressed on existence in western materialistic Philosophy. Does the world exist independent of the mind? Or is there a world independent of the mind? The answers to these questions also have to be considered as knowledge, if we are to build a theory of existence. The ontology is not independent of knowledge and theory of knowledge.

Whatever the answers given to the above questions, they are finally constructions of the mind. Nobody has ever found a way of expressing that the world exists independent of the mind, without finally getting the mind involved. Even if one is of the opinion that the world exists independent of the mind, one has to express that in words, and words are nothing but constructions of the mind. There is no way of expressing that the world exists independent of the mind, without involving the mind. Thus there is no Cartesian wall, as the existence of a world (observed) on the other side of the wall itself is a statement by an observer who has a mind.

One could say that it is the statement of a fact. However, the question arises as to how does one know that it is a fact. There are no facts by themselves. The so-called facts have to be known even if words are not used. It is not essential that knowledge has to be expressed in words. However, knowledge has to be known, even if with the use of images, which we call citta rupa, and images are associated with the mind. Thus there is no knowledge without mind, and the existence of something without knowing is unimaginable.

One could object to the above and say there are so many millions in the world who have no knowledge of the existence of far away galaxies whose existence cannot be doubted. Also it could be pointed out that just seventy five years ago nobody in the western world knew anything about the other galaxies but they had been in existence for millions of years. Thus it could be argued that the objects could exist without them being known to anybody in the universe. However, this is a statement by an observer living today, and not a statement of an observer who lived millions of years ago. It is the knowledge of an observer of the twenty first century, who argues or extrapolates that the universe had been in existence for millions of years. What the present observer says is that the objects he identifies as galaxies had been in “existence” in what he identifies as space and time, in the Newtonian picture, or that the galaxies had modified the space-time for so many millions of years, if he believes in Einstein. The statements which appear to be objective are not so, as any statement made today is an utterance by an observer living in the twenty first century. What are identified as galaxies, perhaps together with some other “objects”, could have been identified as something else, if our five sense organs and/or the mind (in Buddhism mind is also identified as a sense organ) had different “forms” from what we have now. Even if the five sense organs have remained the same for millions of years from the point of view of an “average’ person living in the twenty first century, the way people think has differed from culture to culture and from time to time.

We argue that the world is nothing but the creation of the observer, and that the world is the same as the knowledge of the world of the observer. In the present approach it is not assumed that a world exits independent of the observer who attempts to know or gather “information” of an already existing world. The observer creates knowledge of the “world”, and hence the “world” is relative to the sense organs, mind and the culture of the observer. The knowledge is thus created by the mind with the aid of the other sense organs. There is no knowledge or world, before such knowledge of the world is created, and the knowledge is created as concepts theories etc., by the observer. Thus the so called world is the conceptual and theoretical world of the observer that has been created by the mind. It should be noted that the concepts need not be in the form of words, as images formed in the mind (citta rupa) are also considered as concepts. (To be contimued)

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

On the God particle

This refers to the letter to the editor by Prof. Carlo Fonseka published on 23rd July 2012.

It appears that Prof. Carlo Fonseka has finally collected his “facts” on the God particle though he does not understand what is meant by a “force carrier”. Collecting “facts” and understanding are two different things. However, I have a few questions to him. Does he believe that the God particle exists? What the western Physicists at CERN have done is to interpret certain photographs they had obtained in their big collider to claim that the photos show some characteristics of a particle that Peter Higgs thought gives mass to the other particles. It is only a story and is not different from Newtonian gravitation that “explained” how the earth moves round the sun. Does Prof. Fonseka believe that Newtonian gravitation exists? The model of an atom with particles going round the nucleus is Rutherford’s old hat as according to the new model the quantum particles do not travel along paths or trajectories. Please refer to the series of articles in Vidusara for details.

Prof. Fonseka mentions of direct “observations” through our sense organs, indirect observations through equipments such as telescopes, and of building models, yes Prof. Fonseka models, Higgs Boson being one such model. Newtonian gravitation which was accepted by the western scientists for more than two hundred and fifty years was one such model that was replaced by Einstein in 1915 with his model. Rutherford’s model was replaced by Bohr’s model and then by some other models before being replaced by the so called standard model.

My original question that has not been given proper attention by the scholars and intellectuals in Sri Lanka was who or what gives mass to the Higgs boson that gives mass to all the other bosons. There are first causes in a linear Chinthanaya that cannot be avoided and big bang is the “biggest” example in this regard. I do not claim to be even a scholar or an intellectual let alone a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician, though I have done some work in connection with the big bang more than forty years ago when I was young and immature.

Finally does Prof. Fonseka believe in a theory of everything? Could he explain how a theory of everything tallies with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, assuming of course that western Physics incorporates Arithmetic? In any event the theory of everything has to contain concepts and who would explain those concepts with or without a theory and or other concepts. A theory of everything, if there is one, is nothing but a God theory which attempts to “explain” everything else without explaining itself. Fifty three years ago when we were in the fourth form our Chemistry teacher asked us first to explain definition and then to define explanation.

A Buddhist who has not drifted towards the linear Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya would not believe in a theory of everything. It has to be mentioned that Buddhists do not accept the existence of even those “objects” including particles that are observed directly or indirectly.

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Z score and the concerned parent

I refer to the piece by a "concerned parent" on ‘The Z-Score and Professorial Pronouncements’ published in the Sunday Island on 12th February 2012. He is surprised that I did not consult Natha Deviyo on the Z score and tells the readers that, unlike the other Professors mentioned by him, Prof. Carlo Fonseka and I "have tended to obfuscate the issue and create confusion in the minds of the reader". I respect Prof. Fonseka more than most of the other Professors in Sri Lanka, though I have differences in opinion with him when it comes to Epistemology, the so called ethnic problem and Marxism, and I do not think he tended to obfuscate the issue and create confusion in the minds of the reader. Neither did I and as far as I am concerned I only tried to point out number of factors that both Prof. Thatil and others, and the members of the panel of experts appointed to propose a scheme of standardization had not considered. It has to be pointed out the panel of experts consisted of western Statisticians, I suppose of the same calibre as Prof. Thatil.

One of the factors I mentioned was the difference in the populations that sat for the examination in any subject in the old syllabus and the new syllabus. In any normal year the students who sit for the first time and the repeaters sit the same paper and are "pooled" in determining the Z score in any subject. This year as well as in 2001, in each subject there were two groups, one sitting for the first time and the other consisting of repeaters. The scheme that Prof. Thatil had introduced looks after the degree in difficulty with respect to different subjects and not with respect to the differences in the "merits" of the group of repeaters and the others in any subject. I believe that it is in order to look after this problem that pooling has been suggested by the panel of experts. I have no problem with pooling in principle, but I found that the "formula" that they had adopted was not quite correct. Having said that I mentioned that the differences in difficulty also had to be looked after and suggested after pooling and scaling, the students should be regrouped or "de-pooled" and another standardization should be carried out along the lines introduced by Prof. Thatil. It is not a recommendation as such and I am of the opinion pooling is more important than Thatil standardization.

In the articles I have read many had expressed the idea that populations of the two groups who sat for the first time and those who repeated cannot be pooled without giving any reason whatsoever as to why they cannot be pooled. In a normal year these groups are "pooled" or considered together and one has to come out with a convincing reason as to why they cannot be pooled without merely stating that populations cannot be pooled. I tend to think that in 2001 all the experts did not either consider the differences due to "merit" in the groups of repeaters and first timers or have a solution to the problem.

I did not consult Natha Deviyo in this case for the reason that I know that Natha Deviyo would not answer such questions, among others. Natha Deviyo is more concerned with people dying (two people per day) of Rajarata Kidney Disease and already he had given instructions on the cause of the disease, as western medicine has no answer to the problem. On the other hand there are western statistical methods to deal with standardization, a concept arising in the west, and I know that people are interested in solving this particular problem within the method of standardization, without waiting for us to come out with our own solutions. With respect to solving these problems in the courts of law I was reiterating a statement by Feyerabend on so called expert opinion in Science, with which I agree. It may be the accepted way of solving the problems, meaning the way imposed on us by the westerners how to solve such problems, but according to the traditions of my culture I question the so called accepted methods whether in law statistics or science, especially since we would not be independent unless we are independent of the knowledge of the westerners dominating our thinking, if we are thinking at all.

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Mathematics and Physics(NP)

Let me first deal with banter of Prof. Carlo Fonseka as it is relevant to our discussion. I am younger now than when I went to the UK to write that thesis, does not mean that I am younger due to the air travel. After coming back to Sri Lanka I grew older until about the year 1980, repeating like many others what the westerners had taught me. My so called research confined to some peripheral problems in western science without challenging its concepts or theories. However, after that year new ideas came to me in a “procession” and it is generally believed that it is the young who are endowed with new ideas. I have been able to think a fresh creatively since then, and I am happy that I am growing younger, though many, especially in the academia may not like my original ideas. Prof. Carlo Fonseka does not belong to that category and that is one of the reasons I respect him.

Prof. Fonseka does not seem to have grasped the essence of time dilation in Special Relativity. It is essentially regarding the time interval between two events as measured by observers moving relative to each other. In special relativity objects cannot travel with velocities faster than light though there appear to be evidence recently to the contrary. For a particle travelling with a velocity less than that of light the time as measured by a clock moving with it (proper time) increases and a person does not become younger by going in an airplane. The clocks that were taken round the earth referred to by Prof. Fonseka registered different times due to general relativistic effects and rotation, and is not related to the so called twin paradox in special relativity. In any event my being younger now has nothing to do with traveling in airplanes with or without that young lady called Bright.

What I said on imposing ideas is the following. “After coming back from the UK to Sri Lanka then known as Ceylon in another Air Ceylon airplane (could have been the same airplane) I have realized that the westerners have imposed their needs on us through colonialism.”. Prof. Fonseka states that “In any case, my position has nothing to do with westerners having "imposed their needs on us through colonialism’ as claimed by Prof. Nalin”. Prof. Fonseka is of course entitled to think that way but it is not a secret that the schools we attend, the universities where we study and of course the books we read have an immense influence on us unless we for some reason or other make a deliberate attempt to break away from that influence and succeed. What are (western) schools and universities for if not for imposing not only western needs, but also western attitudes, western knowledge, western culture etc.? Personally I am aware how I changed from my semi rural and semi urban knowledge and attitudes to western scientific knowledge and attitudes at schools and the universities, and then how I went back to my cultural identity having realized the inadequacies, weaknesses, inconsistencies, inhumanness etc. in the western Chinthanaya that gave rise to western science. There are many people who talk of Principle of Superposition in Quantum Physics without realizing that it cannot be explained in western thinking. Quantum Physics may be working but as Feynman has said nobody (in the western sciences – my emphasis) understands it. How does one understand that a particle can exist at two or more places simultaneously in Aristotelian logic? At home and the village temple I was brought up in a culture that did not seek comfort but emphasized on avoiding “kamasukhallikanuyogaya” and also “attakilamtanuyogaya” and taught me of “alpecca” and sallahuka” form of life. My upbringing as a child did not allow me to be “bahubhandika”, and today I have no problem in traveling by bus and sparingly using my old car bought in 1978 (before 1980). Full option cars are not for me now, and I am reminded of the “nembiliya” in this regard. “Nembiliya” is used to separate rice from other material found in rice and having constructed and developed it to a certain level, Sinhala people did not want to “improve” it to a full option nembiliya, wasting energy and resources. The concept of comfort is determined by culture and it is not only the bodhisathva who find “dukkha” in comfort. In my series on so called scientific knowledge I will go into detail on this and show how a Science based on Sinhala Buddhist culture or Tamil Hindu culture is different from western science.

Prof. Fonseka says “For my part, my understanding of what the Buddha taught about the way to achieve well-being and happiness through the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion is quite compatible with my understanding of the modern scientific outlook.”. However, greed, competiveness, sensory pleasures etc., are behind modern western consumerism and living in general and more and more possessions will not guarantee happiness to people. It will only destroy the natural resources, increase competitiveness, and I do not think that I have to elaborate on this. In connection to what Buddha had taught there are many scholars who would be happy to show that Buddhism is (western) scientific and rational meaning conformity with Aristotelian logic. It is not so, and I remember Prof. Fonseka himself trying to present Kalama Sutta as evidence for the so called scientific method. However, he has now realized that there is a Part II to Kalama Sutta referring to the Vinnus .

Prof. Fonseka states: “Prof. Nalin’s answer to his question about the effectiveness of western physics based on western mathematics is their ‘abstractness’”, and that in his view “the effectiveness is the outcome of their concreteness and empirical nature.” However the question I asked was "why western mathematics ‘the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true’ has been so effective in western physics" It is different from Prof. Fonseka’s formulation. Western Mathematics is very abstract and western Physics is abstract to a very high degree. It is said that we do not know what we are talking in Mathematics nor whether what we are saying is true, but I presume that Physics is trying to arrive at truth. How can Mathematics with those properties be so effective in Physics as such? On the other hand, if I were to ask Prof. Fonseka why western Mathematics is not effective in Physiology what would his answer be? Concreteness was and is not the hallmark of western science that looks for generalized theories. Even the patients in western medicine are generalized patients and not concrete patients. Finally this talk of empirical nature becomes a travesty when it is claimed that if the appearances (what is grasped through the sense organs) are true, then there is no need for a science. It is said that one starts with observations (experiments, controlled experiments,) then theorize and come back to observations to test the theories. Observations are appearances and how does one know that the theories are true or let us say approaching the truth by comparing the deductions from theories with observations?

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Mathematics and physics

Home  » Opinion » Mathematics and physics

February 12, 2012, 6:46 pm

The miraculous power of western physics based on western mathematics has enabled Prof. Nalin de Silva to respond on the 10th of February to my article on mathematics and physics published in The Island on the 9th of February. As Sir Arthur Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (Clarke’s 3rd Law). Having informed us that he went to the UK many moons ago by an airplane Prof. Nalin says that he is "much younger now" (sic) than he was then. I believe this was a slip i.e. a small unimportant mistake, and what he really meant to say is that he is now "much older", but with my friend Nalin you never can tell. From past experience I know that when he uses a word it means just what he "chooses it to mean, neither more nor less". That is why for years I have avoided arguing with him although I often read the lucubrations of his lateral-thinking mind.

Relativity

In the present context because Prof. Nalin went to and returned from the UK by air to write a thesis on Relativistic gravitational effects in Astrophysics, I must bend over backwards to make sense of his claim that he is much younger after he came back than before he went. If I have got it right, according to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the passage of time can be slowed down. If time can indeed be slowed down it is not intrinsically absurd to suppose that it might even be reversed. So Prof. Nalin’s claim that he is younger now than when he went to the UK can be understood in terms of the following popular limerick:

There was a young lady called Bright,

Who travelled much faster than light.

She set off one day

In a relative way,

And came back the previous night.

Buddhism

Leaving banter on one side, in his response to me, Prof. Nalin refers to a Bodhisatva, dukkha, anicca, and avidya. Obviously he is steeped in Buddhist thought and if he says that he prefers his understanding of Buddhist doctrine and cultural ethos to every other approach to life in this world, who am I to contradict him? For my part, my understanding of what the Buddha taught about the way to achieve well-being and happiness through the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion is quite compatible with my understanding of the modern scientific outlook. This implies that acceptance of my understanding of what the Buddha taught does not require the rejection of my understanding of the modern scientific outlook. In any case, my position has nothing to do with westerners having "imposed their needs on us through colonialism" as claimed by Prof. Nalin. I know that he genuinely believes that my position is due to my lack of sufficient intelligence to understand these matters in the way his first-class mathematical brain does. That is why when exasperated by what he regards as my invincible stupidity and intractable obstinacy, he occasionally calls me a matta (i.e. a dullard) to my face. Who knows, he may well be right!

Abstraction & Empiricism

Prof. Nalin’s answer to his question about the effectiveness of western physics based on western mathematics is their "abstractness". My view is that the effectiveness is the outcome of their concreteness and empirical nature. Sense perception (as opposed to abstract thinking) if not the sole legitimate source of knowledge, is critically the final court of appeal of the validity of modern science. For example, Einstein’s counter-intuitive claim about the relative nature of time, that is to say that the passage of time can slow down, was empirically tested in 1971. Four identical atomic clocks were sent on flights twice around the world, two eastwards and two westwards. Their times were compared with a matched clock on the Earth’s surface in the United States. It was found that the moving clocks had lost a fraction of a second compared with the grounded clock in accordance with the theory of special relativity. (See: 50 physics ideas you really need to know by Joanne Baker, Quercus, page 163. www.quercusbooks.co.uk)

Carlo Fonseka

Mathematics and Physics

I am afraid my senior colleague and friend Prof. Carlo Fonseka has not answered my question. The question I posed in my letter to the editor on 6th February 2012 was "why western mathematics ‘the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true’ has been so effective in western physics" Without answering the question Prof. Fonseka make certain statements (The Island - 9th February 2012) , which are not that relevant. However, I will deal with them with pleasure.

Prof. Fonseka says to “seek comfort” he has “to understand what is happening” in his “environment in terms of cause and effect relationships i.e. gain knowledge about how nature works”. The comfort referred to by Prof. Fonseka may not be the same as what some others may mean by “comfort”. For example a Bodhsathva would have a different objective in life and there are many others who see “dukkha” in “comfort”. There are different attitudes to life in different cultures but unfortunately we are now dominated by western idea of “seeking comfort”. The knowledge systems created by people differ due to these differences among others, and it has to mentioned that Medieval Europe with attitudes based in Catholic culture was not able to create western science. It needed a revolution in Chinthanaya as I call it, in the sixteenth century.

Even if we forget these differences and go with Prof. Fonseka’s idea of “understanding” what is happening in the environment and gaining “knowledge about how nature works”, and assuming that western Physics tries to gain knowledge about how nature works, the question is how could it be done with Mathematics ‘the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true’ in the words of Bertrand Russell. In Mathematics one is not bothered to “know” whether the axioms of the particular branch one studies is “true”, and all that one is interested is in obtaining some other propositions from those axioms using formal logic. My question is if western Physics tries to “gain knowledge about how nature works” how can it do the same with western Mathematics.

Prof. Fonseka says: “ I have gradually realised that the most reliable knowledge available to me has come from the collective experience of human beings living in the east or west, north or south who have observed aspects of the world with their five senses, used their reason to figure out causal explanations for their observations and then checking the validity of their explanations by putting them to the test of experience. Experience has shown humankind that in formulating causal explanations (hypotheses) the use of formal systems of reasoning has greatly contributed to the reliability and usefulness of the final outcomes. One such formal system is mathematics,” Now this is nothing but what was called scientific method before Popper and much water has flown under the Kelani Bridge as well as the Tower Bridge in London since then. As I am discussing these under my series of articles “on so called scientific knowledge I do not want to delve into it now. However I would like to ask how one knows that A = A as assumed in formal logic, in a world of “anicca”. With A = A there is no change (motion), and I have dealt with this problem in an article on “The logic of change”, published in “Kalyani” the journal of the University of Kelaniya.

Incidentally what Gödel proved was that any formal system that incorporates Arithmetic contains statements that are “Mathematically true” which cannot be deduced from its axioms. Prof. Fonseka may think that western Mathematics is “reliable” but then there were so many other systems that could be considered as reliable. It is true that I went to the UK many moons ago in an Air Ceylon airplane to write a thesis on “Relativistic gravitational effects in Astrophysics”. I had been interested in western Physics and Mathematics as a young person and situation demanded that I gain postgraduate qualifications to continue as a lecturer and I had to make that trip to the UK. However, I am much younger now and air travel is not a necessity at present. I seek no employment in any capacity nor any qualifications in western Science. In any event the motion of airplanes was based also on Newtonian Gravitation, which had been discarded as a “Theory of Gravitation” and shown that there was no gravitation as such by Einstein more than fifty years before I got into that airplane. However, the western scientists have still not discarded it and it is continued to be taught in schools and universities. So much for the “scientific method” and “reliable knowledge”.

People invent, construct instruments, concepts, theories etc., depending on their needs and it is needless to say that needs differ from culture to culture. After coming back from the UK to Sri Lanka then known as Ceylon in another Air Ceylon airplane (could have been the same airplane) I have realized that the westerners have imposed their needs on us through colonialism. I do not want to say there was the “dandumaonara” of Ravana constructed most probably due to some need of that society as an alternative to the airplane, but I can assure Prof. Fonseka who hold a very high position in an institution of the western medical profession, that there are hundreds of western medical doctors who have more faith in Sinhala Nila Vedakama than in western Medicine, probably because the former is more “reliable’, and moreover that some of them practise it.

Now since Prof. Fonseka has not answered my question I give my answer to the same. Western Mathematics is very abstract and western Physics is the most abstract among the western Sciences. Western Mathematics has not been very successful in western Physiology or western Biology for that matter, and the main reason for the effectiveness of western Mathematics in western Physics is this abstractness. Of course there is another reason for the effectiveness. Even in western Physics “we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true”, gravitation on which I worked for my thesis being the best example. However, that does not imply that “we know what we are talking about, and what we are saying is true” in other western sciences or for that matter in any “knowledge constructed by human beings due to Avidya. (Avijja paccaya sankara).(12/02/10)

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Mathematics and Physics

Prof. Carlo Fonseka’s article on the nature of Mathematical Knowledge that appeared on 5th February 2012 in “The Sunday Island” prompted me to pen these words. We as students knew that (Pure) Mathematics consists of the set of propositions of the form p implies q, and in fact one of the questions set by my respected teacher late Prof. Douglas Amarasekera for the final examination in the year I sat (in 1967) was on this proposition, which I must say that I answered with delight. I do not know what exactly Prof. Amarasekera had told Prof. Carlo Fonseka on Mathematics and Logic but all that I have to say is that Mathematics cannot be reduced to Logic. Bertrand Russell who himself undertook the task of showing that Mathematics could be reduced to logic with his friend A . N. Whitehead failed in his attempt. Later with his incompleteness theorems Gödel showed that the celebrated Hilbert Programme also failed and since then we know that the formalist methods though used in Mathematics are strictly speaking do not hold water. Western Mathematics is another system of knowledge created by human beings mostly of the male variety just as much Vedic Mathematics is, which is different from the former, and interested readers on this matter may refer to articles by Prof. Raju, though he does not seem to have grasped the idea of culture dependence of knowledge systems created by human beings.

I am a fan neither of western Mathematics nor of western Physics, though I have a very limited knowledge in both, but could Prof. Carlo Fonseka or anybody else explain why western Mathematics "the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true", has been so effective in western Physics in which many people appear to think that they know what they are talking about.(12/02/06)

Nalin De Silva