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

On so called scientific knowledge – XIII

I would like to end this series entitled “on so called scientific knowledge” and write on other related topics such as why western science was born in the west after the sixteenth century and not in China as questioned by Joseph Needham. His pathetic answer was it was the absence of Capitalism in China that prevented construction (creation) of western science in China. However, Copernicus and Galileo lived before the advent of Capitalism and western science and technology only helped the establishment of capitalism. Then there are other questions such as Why Catholic Chinthanaya failed to create western science as such? Why Buddhism is not scientific in the sense science is used after the sixteenth century? Why Vijja (as in Vijja Udapadi say) as used in Buddhism or better Buddha Deshana is not science as used in the west after the sixteenth century? There are many educated Buddhists including Maha Sangha who believe that Kalama Sutta has the characteristics of the “spirit of western science”. However most of these people do not pay attention to Part II of the Sutta where it is said that Vinnus (loosely speaking those who act to lead a satisfactory life here and also after death in the next bhava or do not engage in activities that prevent them such life) are to be followed. However Vinnus are also culture dependent and in this culture imposed by the west through schools, universities, media, it would be difficult to identify Vinnus in the above mentioned sense. Now we have certificated Vinnus following whom would not make life satisfactory in a Buddhist sense. Also I am of the opinion that the readers are tired after going through more than a dozen of instalments in a series of articles to a newspaper. However, before closing this series I must state that though there is no scientific method as such that distinguishes western science from other systems of knowledge that have been constructed by human beings, the former differs from the latter due to the Chinthanaya which western knowledge is based on. I have discussed most of these in Sinhala and an interested reader may find my views (though there is no such person to say my views, mine etc.) on these topics in the two websites www.kalaya.org and www.kalaya1.org.

In the present series of articles I have dealt with the method or absence of a method in western science, reliability and pragmatism, utilitarianism, bankrupt notion of empiricism with the western scientists who look for theories or “science” claiming that appearances cannot be relied upon but have nothing else than so called appearances whether they are called experimental or observational results to check their treasured theories. Moreover, there are no pure observations or perceptions independent of conceptions in spite of some of the western Philosophers such as Russell labouring to show that there are “pure perceptions”. One cannot think of bluishness without the concept of bluishness and concepts are very important though they play hell with our “understanding” of Nibbana. In Buddhism we speak of nama rupa, and there are no rupa without nama, rupa in paticcasamuppada arising internally and not externally. I have explained this in the last two articles in Vidusara, which are available in the archives of the newspaper or in the kalaya website. It has to be emphasised that rupa or external objects in western “science” are not the same as rupa in Buddhism, which are internally constructed with nama. In this last instalment I would like to concentrate on abstractness in western science.

Mathematics is the most abstract of western knowledge though there is western abstract art created in the Einsteinian paradigm in the twentieth century. Though western science claims to be empirical it is not so. The best example is current Theoretical Physics whose theories are not “testable” even with large reactors that have been constructed in the west. As western Physics is the most advanced discipline in western sciences this cannot be treated lightly and ignored. Western Physics is the most abstract system of the western sciences and abstractness is something that Galileo contributed to western system of knowledge in the seventeenth century. The westerners had to go into abstract theorizing when they were confronted with knowledge that reached the west with or without facilitation by the Arab traders. Now it is a well known fact that the Bharat Mathematicians and Astronomers in the eighth century had known the motion of the earth around the Sun. However, they did not abandon the notion that the sun went round the earth, as in Astrology it was the motion round the earth that was important. To them they were relative motions and they knew when to use what. Now the question is how they came to know that the sun went round the earth. It is very unlikely that they observed this motion on the surface of the earth with their eyes or instruments such as telescopes. The Bharat and Sinhala people had knowledge of lenses as evident from the excavations in Abhayagiriya, and there is recorded a story of a Sinhala Bhikku using binoculars to look at another ship while being on a sea voyage. It is also known that Galileo gained knowledge of telescopes from the East. However, motion of the earth round the sun is a different kettle of fish and it is very likely that the Bharat Astronomers had this knowledge through Bhavana or Yoga exercises.

When this knowledge reached Galileo through Copernicus who is credited by the western historians of science with the “discovery” of the heliocentric motion of the earth he had no experience in Bhavana or Yoga exercises and had difficulty in absorbing this knowledge to the new Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya. The heliocentric motion of the earth is not something observable and it was not concrete by any stretch of imagination. In fact imagination had to be stretched so much to give rise to abstract thinking in western science. When Galileo commenced to teach motion of the earth round the sun he was asked by the Pope to demonstrate it and was ordered not to teach without first demonstrating. Galileo was asked by the learned people of Italy in the seventeenth century why apples fell at the root of the apple tree as the earth was moving invariably with the apple tree. Their argument was if the earth moved, then during the time the apple left the tree and fell to the ground, the earth would have moved through a certain distance with the apple tree and there was no way that the apple would have fallen at the root of the apple tree. Since the apple fell at the root of the tree it meant that there was no motion of the earth. This was good logic (reduction ad absurdum) empirical and what not. It was concrete as Catholic Chinthanaya was concrete and there was nothing that Galileo could state to defend his position within concrete empirical rational (though not rationalism in a western Philosophical sense) paradigm and chinthanaya. It was the moment of glory of Galileo to move away from empirical concrete theories and formulate abstract general theories or explanations.

Galileo introduced the notion of relative motion and stated that only relative motion is observable. What he said essentially was that the earth moved not only with the apple tree but with the apple and also with the Pope or the observer and hence all of them shared the motion of the earth. Thus the apple and the observer moved with the earth, say horizontally, and there was no horizontal relative motion of the apple relative to the earth or the pope. Thus the apple did not move away from the apple tree or its root horizontally and though it moved it could not be observed by an observer on the earth, at least in the vicinity of the apple tree. The only relative motion of the apple with respect to the observer was the downward vertical motion, as neither the surface nor the Pope moved “vertically”. Now did Galileo demonstrate that only relative motion was observable? Never, and it is no wonder that the Pope imprisoned Galileo for teaching material that cannot be observed or sense experienced. It was a different science that Galileo created in a different Chinthanaya. While Catholic Chinthanaya was concrete and empirical the new Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya was abstract and general at least in theory. Te western scientific theories whether in Physics or Physiology are general and abstract. They do not theorize for individual objects whether living or not and in Pisa what Galileo demonstrated or attempted to demonstrate was that bodies dropped from the same height simultaneously fell to the ground at the same time irrespective of their mass, colour, shape, density, smell etc. In other words he considered general objects and not concrete objects. Of course he added an element of cheating by not dropping a feather and a stone, say. Even in western medicine theories general patients are considered and teaching in all the faculties in western universities in Sri Lanka and elsewhere are based on general theories and not on concrete theories. These theories are invariably abstract those in Physics being the most abstract.

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