Archive for the ‘Philosophy of Science’ Category

About Philosophy of Science matters.

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on December 14, 2016

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications? by Khuram Rafique

Answer by Khuram Rafique:

For Aristotle, there are four objects (i) earth, (ii) water, (iii) air and; (iv) fire.

First two are heavier objects and last two are lighter objects.

Natural tendency for heavier objects is to move downside due to ‘gravity’.

Natural tendency for lighter objects is to move upside due to ‘lavity’.

Law of Motion: Natural tendency for the moving objects is to stop. If motion is to be continued, force is required.

Aristotle knows that objects move in resistant or viscous medium that’s why they eventually stop.

But Aristotle also thinks that objects cannot move in vacuum. For Aristotle, resistant medium is required for the motion to occur.

For example, a projectile is thrown with hand … after the contact of hand is removed then how motion is continued? Aristotle’s answer is that projectile is moving through resistant medium which is air. When it is moving forward, there will be sudden vacuum at the back side of object and then this vacuum will be suddenly filled by the surrounding air. This sudden vacuum filling by the surrounding air will generate a forward thrust and object will be able to move forward even at time when contact of throwing hand is removed.

However the resistance force of resistant medium will eventually overcome the forward thrust and at the end object will stop.

For Aristotle, first of all any motion in vacuum is not possible due to missing thrust. Secondly, if we accept any motion in vacuum then it would lead to absurdities that object will acquire infinite motion due to absence of resistant medium.

So what was absurd in view of Aristotle, that thing was finally shown as natural by Newton.

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications?


Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Physics | Leave a Comment »

Simple Thought Experiment to Disprove Relative Constant Speed of Light.

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on October 5, 2016

Light Speed is said to be constant irrespective of relative motion of observer.

Moon is about 1.3 light seconds away from us. Suppose moon is looking like a clock such that moon clock is behind your watch by 1.3 seconds.

Now you start moving towards moon with a normal speed of 100 km/hr. Moon is 384400 KM away so your journey will take about 160 days.

Normal speed is assumed so that there should be no alleged effect of time dilation due to ultra high speed.

So after 160 days you will be on moon and what will be the difference in time of your watch and moon clock…???

There will be no difference. Means that due to your relative motion, light of moon clock has traveled up to you at speed c+100 km/hr i.e. with speed c+v.

If you are still reading moon clock as 1.3 seconds behind your watch then it means that from an ordinary distance, light is taking 1.3 seconds to reach you so again constant speed of light postulate is disproved.

Above is only a thought experiment. Now we do a real experiment. So now moon is looking like normal moon and not like a clock. And from earth we see moon which is 1.3 seconds younger than its actual age.

Now we do not suppose, we actually start moving towards moon at normal speed of 100 km/hr. And after 160 days we reach at the surface of moon.

By standing on surface of moon we are looking at moon which is not younger by 1.3 seconds but are looking at moon that exists right now. It means that during whole of our journey we had been receiving light of moon with c+v formula.

If by standing on surface of moon we are watching moon which is 1.3 seconds younger than its actual age, it means that light is taking extra 1.3 seconds to reach our eyes and again constant speed of light postulate is disproved.



Posted in -Home-, Mathematics, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time | Leave a Comment »

Issue of larger brain size of Einstien:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on July 20, 2009

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
People believe in scientific myths that Einstien got some extraordinary brain:)

Was really E=mc2 anything new???

Not at all…!!!

We already knew K.E=1/2mv2

So, in a sense, there was nothing new in “energy-mass equivalence”.

“c” is only the so-called absolute form of “v”.

When talking in absolute terms (i.e. not in half terms where K.E is half of Total Energy), then we don’t need “1/2” in the equation of K.E.

We simply get “E=mc2”

It is said that this wonderful formula describes energy equivalent of mass at rest. Since value of c is so high so an ordinary mass at rest will be possessing huge quantity of energy. It is also said that this formula rightly predicted such things as Nuclear Bomb.

Whereas fact is that this formula only describes such an hypothetical situation where velocity “v” of a mass has reached to the standard maximum value i.e. “c”. So actually this formula has nothing to do with state of rest of mass.

It is so assumed that this formula describes energy equivalent of mass at rest because “c” has been considered a “universal constant”. Again, fact is that within the context of matter having mass, “c” is not any “universal constant”. “c” is just the standard maximum value of a “variable” which is velocity “v”. Despite official claims of Science, there are so many unofficial counter claims that speed of light “c” is not constant or even the maximum possible speed. But here we don’t need to go against official claims. Let us accept that speed of light may be constant and may it be the maximum possible value of “v”. But point is that even then “c” cannot be regarded as “universal constant” when talking in terms of matter and mass. Because after all then it is only a value of a variable “v”. So in this sense, if “c” is not a universal constant, it means that formula E=mc2 is not describing state of rest of mass. It is only describing an hypothetical situation where value of speed (i.e. a variable “v”) of certain mass has reached to the standard maximum value which is “c”. In this right context, actually formula E=mc2 is just worthless. It is only the case of such a K.E which, due to the mass having been reached to the maximum value of velocity (may be just hypothetically), has become Total Energy.

Nuclear Bomb was the result of later discoveries of hidden Nuclear forces and was not the result of this formula. Neither this formula has anything to do with those nuclear forces. It is the nature of Nuclear Structure of any atom which determines energy contents of that element. Mere “mass” does not determine it. If it were the case then Scientists should not have needed Uranium etc. because they could get mere mass from other common elements like iron etc. also, for making Nuclear Bomb.

“Professional scientists” are making us fool by saying Einstien had some extraordinary brain…!!!

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics | 4 Comments »

Time – a mental construct or a physical reality?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on January 5, 2009

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
If we go deeper than our (actually my) understanding abilities, then we are at the level of an idealist. At this level, we are not confirmed whether material world really exists or not. Then we can theorize that time is just a mental construct.

But if we are not at this much level of depth, then we are at the level of a scientist who takes material world a reality.

At this level … time is not any physical thing. But however, time is the name of a physical phenomenon.

Physical events do occur before and after one another. Course of occurrence of physical events is a physical phenomena.

Some events are repetitive in nature and they occur at regular intervals. In normal conditions, regular interval between one kind of physical event can correspond to exact number of intervals between some other regular type physical event.

Time can only be measured by comparing the number of intervals of different regular type events.

Time is duration between events. Duration is measurable by comparing the number of intervals of different regular type events. And that physical duration is the time!

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Space & Time | 5 Comments »

What is Mind? What is its relationship with Brain?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on November 13, 2008

“Mind” is an abstract term. Mind is not the name of any physical thing. Word “Mind” is different from word “Brain”. “Brain” is the name of a physical thing.

In most simple terms, Mind is sum total of knowledge, information, opinions and attitudes of a person. Mind is conscious of itself.

Relationship of mind and brain is that of software and hardware. But brain is not based on binary technology. Therefore nature of mind is different from the nature of computer softwares. For example, if most basic element in computer software is “data”, then most basic element of mind is not data … the most basic element of mind is “information” i.e. a “proposition”.

Mind gets basic input of “information”. Mind organizes this information in various styles. And the so “organized” information is the “knowledge”.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Theory of Knowledge | 7 Comments »

“Space-Time Four Dimensions” Vs. “Time is Not Absolute”:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on February 24, 2008

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
“Space-Time Four Dimensions” Vs. “Time is Not Absolute”:

Relativity Theory is often linked with the idea of space-time four dimensions. Meaning of space-time four dimensions is quite simple however. Just like we refer to a “point” in “space” using THREE coordinate references, we refer to an “event” using FOUR coordinate references of “space-time”, where three are the coordinates of space and the fourth is the time coordinate.

So far this concept of four dimensional “space-time” is quite simple. Actual confusion comes when both Special and General Theories of Relativity assert that Time is not absolute. According to these theories, since there is no absolute time, so two observers can record different time durations of a single event, even if they employ exact same type watches for recording the time duration.

Actually, General Relativity Theory provides that Time can move faster or slower at different locations of Universe. Speed of Time, according to this theory (i.e. experimentally proven) is normal (means fastest) in complete empty space where there is no effect of any force of gravitation at all.

But at those spots of universe, which are in the range of considerable force of gravitation, time slows down at those locations.

Secondly, Special Theory of Relativity says that time slows down in an object if that object is moving at very high speed i.e. comparable to the speed of light (i.e. “time dilation”). These two assertions of General Theory and Special Theory of Relativity have been resulted in famous “End of Time” in Black Holes (General Theory) and “Twin Paradox” (Special Theory) sort of things. These assertions also have been resulted in confusions regarding the concept of space-time four dimensions. Since there is no absolute time and since time can be different at different spots of spatial universe, so there comes the confusion as if ”time” is some “physical” part of “space” and that as if “space” has physical four dimensions, due to which time can be different at different points of space. Purpose of this article is just to show that these two assertions of General Theory and Special Theory of Relativity that time can be different in (i) gravitational fields and in (ii) high speed objects, have nothing to do with the simple concept of space-time four dimensions.

Let us take the assertion that time slows down in gravitational field (General Theory). Out of this primary assertion (empirically proven), what can be logically deduced is just that Speed of time is the characteristic property of any particular point of three-dimensional space.

But since this speed of time can very for high speed objects as well (Special Theory) … so speed of time can be considered to be a characteristic property of speed of objects as well.

To conclude Four physical dimensions of space or even space-time, out of these two assertions of General Relativity and Special Relativity is a whole misleading and just confused idea. Very ironically, science literature discusses the concept of space-time four dimensions and another quite different fact that time is not absolute, in a way that gives the sense that these two are representing a single concept … that space or space-time has physical four dimensions.  

Idea that “Time” is the 4th dimension of “space” is Totally Absurd – PROOF

Let us first assume that science in fact says that “time” is the fourth dimension of “space”. Actually science doesn’t say exact this thing, but we can proceed in following way to prove that “time” cannot be the fourth dimension of “space”:

If “science” is talking about “space” … then it should talk about only and only space. It means, “science” should talk about complete empty space.[Also see my article: Space as a form of ‘Nothingness’]

In a complete empty space … where there is no “matter” at all … Time cannot even exist in such complete empty space.

What is Time…???

Concept of time comes out of movement of material objects. Movement of material objects generates events.

What is Time…???

Time is actually the DURATION between those EVENTS.

In a complete empty space >>> there shall be no material objects >>> With no material objects >>> there shall be no movement of material objects >>> with no movement >>> there shall be no EVENTS >>> with no events >>> there shall be no DURATION between EVENTS >>> Means No Time at all…!!!

Time does not exist in empty space. So the idea that “time” is 4th dimension of space is Totally Absurd.

And as I have explained that Time does not exist in empty space. Here I want to add something to it.

The concept of time is wholly dependent on the movement of physical objects. Time does not reside in “space”. Time is there inside of physical objects. Because physical objects always remain in the state of motion. It is only and only physical objects and their mutual interactions that give us the “idea” of time. What has been empirically verified is just that movement of same nature “events” slows down with increase in the strength of Gravitational field. Gravitational field is Not the characteristic property of space itself. Gravitational field is the characteristic property of massive material objects in fact. Events occur only and only in material objects … Duration between events also has to do only with material objects … Slowing down of those events is also because of “mutual interactions” of those material objects.

Time, so, resides only in the “behavior” of “physical objects”. Time does not slow down because of some property of space itself. Time slows down only due to “mutual interactions” of material objects. Let’s at point ‘T’ of empty space, speed of time is ‘a’. Now we bring a massive material object near the point ‘T’. Now speed of time at point ‘T’ shall be slowed down because now this point would be within the range of a gravitational field. This slowing down of time has not happened due to any property of “space” whatsoever. It has happened just due to mutual interaction, or type of movement (in case of slowing down of time in high speed objects) of material objects.

Time has nothing to do with Space…!!!

Space has only three dimensions. We use three dimensions of space to locate a “point” in three dimensional space.

But we use four dimensions of “space-time” just with the view to locate an “event” in four dimensional space-time.

This simple idea of space-time four dimensions is not the direct or indirect result of the complicated idea of Theories of Relativity that time is not absolute and that time can be different in gravitational fields (General Relativity) or in high speed objects (Special Relativity).

But the fact that there is no absolute time in this universe does have its implication on the “structure” of space-time coordinates. In most simple words, the “time coordinate” of four dimensional “space-time” can be thought of having an “irregular scale”. Let us talk in terms of two different frames of references of two observers A and B. Observer A is stationary in space and is not subjected to varying strengths of surrounding gravitational fields (Suppose he is stationary in complete empty space outside the influence of any gravitational field). Observer B is moving in space with velocity v. As observer B is moving, he sometime moves from complete empty space and sometime goes through the fields of gravitation because of the presence of nearby massive bodies.

In this case, time coordinate scale of observer A has to be perfectly regular. Means his every second will be having a constant duration. But time coordinate scale of observer B will be irregular. Whenever he will pass by gravitational fields, the duration of his “seconds” will become greater because his time will slow down within the range of gravitational fields. He himself may not be able to take notice of irregularities of his time scale. But observer A will be able to take notice of irregularities of time scale of observer B. Suppose originally both observers kept exact same type watches. In the end, when observer B shall come to the location of observer A, then both observers’ clocks will show different passage of time. Observer B’s clock will show lesser passage of time than observer A’s clock because observer B was subjected to slowing down of his time at different spots of his journey. Observer B was also subjected to slowing down of his time because of his own velocity v.

It has been mentioned above that “irregularity” of the scale of time coordinate of observer B can be noticeable to only observer A. It is due to the fact that as clock of observer B becomes slow, so his all other movements in space also have to slow down. Meaning of slowing down of time is not confined to just slowing down of clock. Its complete meanings include slowing down of all the movements and events, including slowing down of clock and even “feeling” of passage of time as well as biological aging process, with same ratio. As every kind of movement in space has been slowed down, therefore for observer B, his distance traveled in space per unit time shall NOT be affected; because for him, his clock and his movement in space has been slowed down with exact same ratio. It means that observer B shall not be able to realize any decrease (or increase) in his “velocity” in space as a result of slowing down of his time.

Let us now talk only in terms of “time dilation” due to high velocity of observer B in space (i.e. Special Relativity). Suppose initially both observers A and B were at same location in space. Then observer B starts his journey in space at very high velocity i.e comparable to the speed of light. Suppose his destination was located at the distance of exact one hour with that much high velocity. Observer B has to reach his destination and has to come back at original location. For observer A, observer B should come back in exact two hours.

Now let us see what will happen due to the irregularity of the scale of time coordinate of observer B. As observer B will acquire high velocity, his time will be slowed down with reference to the time of observer A. Not only the clock of observer B, but his movement in space per unit time of observer A will also be slowed down. But as his movement in space will be slowed down in exact same ratio of his own clock timing, so neither observer B will be able to take notice of slowing down of his clock timing, nor he will be able to take notice of slowing down of his movement in space.  For him, he is still moving at the velocity that will take exact one hour to reach at the destination. In this way, he shall reach to the destination and will come back to original location in exact two hours.

But in the same “time”, observer A’s clock will show passage of far more time … may be 10 hours, 10 days, 10 years or like, depending on the velocity acquired by observer B. 

This is exactly what “Twin Paradox” tries to highlight. That there were two twin young brothers. One brother started journey in space at very high velocity. After few minutes when he came back, he saw that his twin brother was then an aged person!

Net result of this article is that space-time four dimensions is basically a simple concept. Idea of no absolute time does not mean that time is a “physical” dimension of space. Idea of no absolute time has the implication however that it suggests irregular scale of the time coordinate for an observer who is moving in four dimensional space-time with velocity v and/ or becomes subject to varying strengths of surrounding gravitational fields.

At the end, it is also important to point out that modern Physics also suggests more than three dimensions of “space” alone. It is said that higher dimensions of space are not perceivable to us because they reveal themselves only at particle levels and at very high energy states like in particle accelerators etc. Modern speculative theories like Strings Theory and M-Theory etc. have tried to construct models of universe in terms of higher than three dimensions of space.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Space & Time | 18 Comments »

Nature of Science – Rational or Empirical…???

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on August 24, 2007

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
Nature of Science – Rational or Empirical…???

There is widespread misconception among many supporters of modern established science that scientific facts and theories are all empirical in nature and this so-called “empirical” knowledge is superior to any kind of “rational” knowledge. Sometimes back, I had a little debate with supporters of the idea of so-called “empirical science”. In that debate, I pointed out that modern science’s over-emphasis on “empirical methods” is based on following false and misleading point of view:

“The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.”

In my opinion, the above-quoted point of view is misleading. First of all I do not accept the idea of “pure rational reasoning”. For me, the idea of a Rationalist that mind can find the first principle without any involvement of sensory information is WRONG AB INITIO.

In this connection, for me, point of view of John Locke is true that all basic knowledge comes only through the channel of senses. Mind cannot reach to any first principle without involvement of sensory information.

A Rationalist like Descartes or Hegel says that mind, at its own, can reach to first principle. All other knowledge of reality then can be deduced out of that first principle. Thus this form of Pure Rationalism works on deductive logic.

Now I try to explain that this “Pure Rationalism” is deductive logically inaccurate. Consider the following simple deductive argument:

All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C

Now I try to analyze this “conclusion”. This deductive conclusion consists of four words which are (i) All, (ii) A, (iii) is (iv) C

In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.

Now take the example of a renowned first principle i.e. “Cogito Ergo Sum”. Descartes claims that this is the first principle of his philosophy. In the Pure Rationalism, all other contents of philosophy must have to be deduced out of this first principle.

Now we know that in any deductive conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed. What it means? If Descartes` philosophy is really a Pure Rationalism, then there should not be more than three words in his whole detailed philosophy.

Pure Rationalism is logically wrong….!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes is having a false claim that he is pure Rationalist Philosopher. In the real sense, his Philosophy could not go against the basic idea of John Locke. That`s why his detailed philosophy is having so many words … which are although seeming to be the part of reasoning … but actually have come from sensory information.

Now I again come to the above-quoted statement, which, in my opinion, is a completely misleading point of view. I reproduce that statement below:

“The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.”

In this connection, my opinion is that sensory information is considered to be opposed to rational reasoning by the “Pure Rationalist Philosophers”. Pure Rationalists` point of view is logically wrong so this statement is also logically wrong.

Fact is not that reasoning is opposed to sensory information. Fact is that reasoning is actually a RE-ARRANGEMENT of sensory information.

My opinion is that all knowkledge is basically empirical … because point of view of John Locke i.e. an Empiricist, was right, in my assessment.

But in my opinion, there is no clash between “empirical knowledge” and the so-called “rational knowledge”. Rational Knowledge is actually just a re-arrangement of empirical knowledge. This point of view, basically, was originated by David Hume.

Here, an objection can be raised that point of view of modern science is not akin to the philosophy of “Pure Rationalism” because modern science doesn’t work on any given “first principle”.

My point of view is that mere fact that science doesn’t work on any given first principle doesn’t make it purely empirical in nature. Modern science is still very much “rational”, in my opinion. But modern science is not “rational” in the sense of “pure rationalism philosophy”. Modern science is “rational” only in the true sense of rationalism. And the true rational sense is that product of reasoning has to be a “re-arrangement” of sensory data. So in this right sense, we should not find any clash between product of reasoning and any empirical knowledge. If we try to look more closly, we shall find that product of reasoning, being the “re-arrangement” of sensory information, can be considered to be the final product. Mere sensory information can be regarded as just raw material in this right sense. In this way, rational knowledge i.e. the product of reasoning, should be considered to be superior form of knowledge because of being the final product in essence. Mere empirical knowledge is actually inferior because it is just like raw material which still has to go through the process of rational reasoning. The mistake of modern science is that it considers itself only empirical in nature. It is important to highlight that modern science, mistakenly, not only disowns, but also degrades all the forms of rational reasoning. As a collateral mistake, modern science considers only empirical knowledge to be the superior most form of knowledge. And as a result of this kind of mistakes, modern science doesn’t officially recognize any valid role of logical reasoning in it’s research procedures. It’s proof is that theory of logic is not the part of syllabus of study of science at any level.

I have mentioned earlier that in the “true rational sense”, product of logical reasoning has to be a “re-arrangement” of empirical knowledge. I have no objection against a True Rationalist. I have objections against only Pure Rationalist. A True Rationalist knows the importance of sensory or empirical information. But he doesn`t confine himself to just empirical procedures. The procedure of a True Rationalist can be stated like:

Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification>>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Verifications

I have objections against “established” scientists also. They are Not True Rationalists because they ignore the LOGIC part of this true procedure. If anyone is a PhD. in Physics, I am hopeful that he/ she migh not have seen Theory of Logic as a part of his/ her syllabus.

Here I am in need to clearly differentiate between “True Rationalism” and “Pure Rationalism”. Accepted definition of Pure Rationalism is “such a Philosophical view that accepts the possibility that mind can reach to first principle (i.e. axiom) without help or involvement of sensory information.” This form of Pure Rationalism downgrades sensory information, by assigning superiority to only Pure Rational Knowledge. All the detailed philosophy of reality is supposed to be rationally deducible out of that first principle. In this way pure rationality can find everything about reality even in complete absence of sensory information. This philosophical view has created a misconception as if there is some clash between sensory knowledge and rational knowledge.

In the times of Galileo, Johannes Cappler and Newton etc. when Old Greek “rational” (i.e. pure rational … as supposed) theories were found to be wrong as per experimental tests, then sensory or empirical data/ information got superiority over the so-called pure rational knowledge. Then scientists started degrading all the forms of rational knowledge because no one bothered to see that actually rational knowledge was not any entity which could exist independently of empirical knowledge. General idea was that empirical knowledge and rational knowledge were having separate and independent sources of origin and that now onwards, only empirical knowledge became standard of truth. Newton’s laws of Motion were declared to be Empirical Laws whereas fact is that let’s say First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law. My question is that what is the empirical proof that an object shall always remain in the state of rest until and unless it is impressed upon by a net positive force? What could be the “empirical proof” for such a law? Obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period because the thing to be empirically confirmed here is that the object shall ALWAYS remain in the state of rest. So the complete empirical test can be performed only over an infinite period of time. Not only that this law cannot be empirically tested, it is also not the product of any empirical test but is the product of Logic. In order to develop this law, Newton himself had not conducted any experiment. This law happened to be the Logical Conclusion of those experiments which Galileo had performed on inclined plane. Galileo had found that a ball, in a double inclined plane, when moves downwards on downside plane, it accelerates. And the same ball when moves upside, on the other upside plane, the ball decelerates. Galileo reached to its logical conclusion that if ball is neither moving downside, nor upside; then it would neither accelerate nor decelerate. The logical conclusion, to which Newton reached was that if a ball is neither accelerating nor decelerating, then the ball shall be in the state of rest or uniform speed. And since Newton knew the concept of Force of Gravitation, so he drew another logical conclusion that downside acceleration and upside deceleration of ball was due to net downside force and net upside force respectively. The next logical conclusion was that in the absence of any “force”, the ball shall neither accelerate nor decelerate. And the other logical conclusion was that a ball, if neither accelerating, nor decelerating, it means that either it is at rest or it is moving with uniform speed. And the final logical conclusion was a simple generalization that any object, as long as it is not impressed by any net positive force, it shall either remain in the state of rest, or shall remain in continuous straight and uniform speed motion.

So despite this complete logical construction, this law is still considered to be an “Empirical Law”, and therefore, a part of “Empirical Knowledge”. Any “Rational Knowledge” is still disregarded, as scientists believe in the erroneous idea of some clash between empirical and rational knowledge. Although the scientists do sometime talk of ‘rationality’ as well and it is also true that their concept of ‘rationality’ is not akin to the philosophy of Pure Rationalism, but still their concept of rationality cannot be regarded as true rationality. It seems that scientists are not clear on the issue of type and nature of ‘rationality’ that should be the part of their procedures. In above discussion, I mentioned the True Rational Procedure in following way:

Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification>>> Logical Interpretation of Empirical Verifications

Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages.

Just the “Empirical Verification” cannot become a solid proof until and unless such “Empirical Verification” has been logically interpreted and explained. Those who are not scientists may not believe in the just simple truths of scientists. I believe that many illogical and inaccurate theories are still the part of established science.

Modern science emphasizes on its so-called “empirical methods” so much that it tends to almost completely deny any valid role of logical reasoning or the theory of logic in the process of development of new scientific theories. This position of modern science can be described in the words of a so-called scientist in following way:

“While all credible scientific theories are logically consistent, logic by itself has seldom, if ever, discovered any scientific theory.”

My comments:

It is a super false idea. I already had discussed the complete logical development of first law of motion by Newton in the above discussion.

So previously, I had shown that first law of motion was the product of “LOGIC”. Now I try to show that second law also had come from the door of LOGIC. As first law was stating the logical results of the complete absence of force, second law just stated the logical results of presence of force. In the first law, the logical result of the absence of force was non-acceleration. This non-acceleration had two logical states which were (i) complete rest and; (ii) uniform velocity motion.

Now come to see what was the second law in fact. Second law just had introduced the element of “force” in the same situation of first law. In the first law, the absence of force had given the result of “non-acceleration”. So the LOGICAL result in second law, of the “presence” of “force” was the “acceleration”. Second law of motion was outcome of just mere logic up to this point. The next problem was that ok there had to be “acceleration” in the presence of “force” … but how much acceleration…??? The issue of “how much acceleration” required experimental works as well as application of mathematics. For the development of second law of motion, logic played primary role whereas experimental and mathematical works had secondary function.

Perhaps science is having complete pragmatic self-conception, which may be useful but may not be acceptable to True Rational Philosophy because of being inconsistent with facts. Science only sees if “outcome” is useful or profitable or not. Science focuses only on end results and doesn`t bother to see or evaluate the sources of origin of scientific theories.

Was Mendeleev`s “Periodic Table” not the outcome of logic? He had constructed that table on the basis of “consitent” or “ordered” properties exibited by certain elements. Is logic not the name of consistency and order? He had placed even some unknown elements of his time in their proper order. The act of placing an unknown thing on its right place was a logical act and cannot be regarded as “empirical” act in any way. It is just like as premises come from sense experience whereas right logical conclusion is formed without direct sense perception.

Even the John Dolton`s theory of atom was also logical. Original theory of atom was just the logical answer to such questions as why only specific quantitative combination of different elements result in chemical compounds.

Uptill now I have discussed only the role of deductive logic in the process of development of scientific theories. Actually role of deductive logic is really limited. Most ideas or scientific theories are actually the outcome of ANOLOGY, which is a form of inductive logic. To understand the role of analogy, readers will have to go through my following article in complete:

Compound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas..

In my opinion, Newton had reached the concept of Gravitational Force of earth through the process of analogy. If anyone asks, I can write about it in details as well. Coulumb`s law is very much similar to Newton`s Law of Gravitation. Role of analogy cannot be overlooked in the process of development of Coulumb`s law because analogy works on the basis of “similarity” between processes or phenomena or things. Many of the theories of Einstien were “analogical” in nature like the idea of “similarity” between field of gravitation and an accelerated system. The idea that if accelerated system could bent ray of light then a gravitational field also could bent ray of light, was also analogical idea. And remember that it was this idea which was experimentally verified to be true in 1919 during the time of a solar eclips.

I am having the opinion that more than 95% new ideas come through the process of analogy, i.e. a form of LOGIC. I have given link to my related article for its details.

So science should not be restricted to just “empirical procedures”. There is valid role of rational reasoning in the process of discovery of new scientific facts. So there is need to include theory of rational reasoning in the research procedures of science as well as in the syllabus of science education.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Theory of Knowledge | 7 Comments »

Space – as a form of ‘Nothingness’:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on June 29, 2007

Our Universe is considered to be made up of matter, energy and space. At the level of sub-atomic particles, Quantum Physics has found that both matter and energy behave like ‘waves’. There are some modern scientists-cum-philosophers who assert that ‘space’ is also composed of waves. They actually think that all the reality is made up of just ‘space’ and ‘space’ itself is made up of ‘waves’. Here, I disagree to the idea that ‘space’ is made up of waves. My contention is that space is NOT ‘composed’ of waves but actually space just ‘holds’ waves. Space is the name of nothingness. Space is the name of complete non-resistance for physical entities (waves: matter + energy). Space has no dimensions. Space has no measurements of its own. Space has no vastness. It is not right to say that space is finite or infinite. Because Space is ‘nothingness’. Space has no positive ‘existence’. Space, being complete non-resistance, neither attracts, nor repels anything. Those modern scientists-cum-philosophers also show amazement that how comes that matter is ‘suspended’ in space. For me, it is just due to the simple fact that space itself neither attracts, nor repels anything. So there is nothing to wonder for why objects are suspended in space.

We never measure ‘space’. We only measure ‘material entities’. For instance, 3 meters of ‘space’ is not 3 meters of ‘space’ in the real sense. 3 meters of space is actually just equal to 3 physical meters. In this way, neither we ever measure space, nor space can be measured. Only material entities can be measured. And since ‘space’ is the name of complete non-resistance, so space offers no resistance even to the measurements of material objects, to their mutual distances or to any other form of their mutual interactions. And if there is ‘distance’ between two material objects, it does not mean that any space of particular measurement ‘exists’ between those two objects. Those two objects are away from one another with distance, which is equivalent to particular number of times a physical object such as a meter. As space is ‘nothingness’, so it should have no ‘dimensions’ as well. We know of ‘dimensions’ also only in terms of material objects. It is the ‘geometry’ of physical objects, which makes us think as if space is having 3 (Some modern theories of Physics are advocating for even n-dimensions) dimensions.

So I have this type of objections in mind. For me reality is not space because it is a non-existent entity. Reality should be seen in those entities that positively exist. There are two things which are known to have positive existence which are: (i) matter and; (ii) Energy. And since both these things have been found to be made up of single entity i.e. ‘waves’, so instead of considering ‘space’ to be the source of all reality, I think it better to consider ‘waves’ as the source of reality. But we also should properly distinguish between existing entity and non-existing entity.

If waves only have discrete motion (as per Quantum Physics), then why to even talk of any kind of continuous physical motion at all? For me, all physical motion, including physical motion of ordinary objects is not continuous at all. All physical motion is discrete. Consider a simple situation. My car is moving at the speed of 100 Km/hrs and it is raining outside. Suppose vertical velocity of a raindrop was 10 Km/hrs whereas that drop had zero horizontal velocity. Now when that drop shall collide with my windscreen, it will at once acquire horizontal velocity of 100 Km/hrs. So obviously there has been a sudden change in the velocity of that drop. I can give many other simple such examples. Since the examples are too simple so I assume that readers shall understand at their own. However, I shall elaborate this point in further details in my next posts. Here, I can confidently proceed that all physical motion is only discrete. Here Zeno’s famous paradox also can be very easily solved. Zeno had argued while assuming continuous physical motion and physical existence of ‘space’. But since space has no positive existence at all and the motion of physical objects is only discrete, so logically it is possible that material objects can cover distance and so reality is not static but reality is there in variations.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time | 7 Comments »

Some Points About Nature of Infinity:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on May 6, 2007

Some Points About Nature of Infinity:

Issue of the nature of infinity is quite confusing. There are theories in Mathematics, which suggest that a finite line and an infinite line, both will be having one to one, and onto correspondence between their respective points. It means that as per these theories (e.g. Georg Cantor; 1845-1918), number of points of a finite line has to be exactly equal to the number of points of an infinite line. Apparently, this theory made no proper sense to me. Actually I believe in the “discrete” nature of reality rather than considering it to be “continuous”. Soon I shall try to explain this point in my next posts. For the purpose of this post, we can just assume that reality is “discrete” and is not “continuous” in any way. Keeping in view this assumption, below I try to discuss some of the supposed characteristics of infinity:

1. The set of all positive integers (i.e. infinite) is smaller (in cardinality) than the set of real numbers between 0 and 1.

My Comments:

May be true. But I doubt in the “real” existence of real numbers. As I assume (which I shall prove later on) that reality is “discrete” and not “continuous”, so what I think is that continuous numbers can exist only in certain abstract mathematical relations but any such kind of continuity cannot exist in our Physical world. There cannot be infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1.

2. The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is equal (in the sense that there exists a one to one and onto mapping) to the set of real numbers between 0 and 2.

Actually this one to one and onto mapping of points is considered to be existing even between a finite line and an infinite line. It means that according to mathematics (theory of Georg Cantor; 1845-1918), the numbers of points on a finite line have its number of points exactly equal to the number of points of an infinite line.

It can be seen that this theory is older than the emergence of Quantum Physics. I no more consider this theory to be valid. A finite line must be having finite number of discrete points and an infinite line must be having infinite number of discrete points. There cannot be one to one correspondence between finite points and infinite points. Quantum Physics has even calculated the minimum possible (or absolute minimum) distance. There is no anything like perfect continuity in our physical world.

Secondly, Geometry still uses old Greek concept of point. It is defined something like an abstract point, which occupies no space. The same Geometry defines ‘line’ something like as a “combination of points”. What I think is that this pure abstract mathematics cannot be applied to the physical world. If a ‘point’ has no space at all then how any ‘line’ (i.e. combination of points) can have any space…??? I think that a combination of ‘space less’ points cannot have any length. Abstract Mathematics says that a ‘line’ has length but it does not have any width. Anyways, there is need to have a Quantum or Discrete Geometry as well.

Basic forms, and a definition of Infinity:

A line can be started from a definite point and can be considered to be extending to infinity on one direction. Such a line can be considered to be ‘infinite’ line. But remember that this ‘infinite’ line has a ‘definite’ origin. This line is infinite only on onward side but this line is not infinite on backward side.

On the other hand, there also can be a line, which can be considered to be extending infinitely towards both sides. This line is also infinite. But this line is infinite towards onward and backward sides both. So there can be one directional infinity as well as there can be two directional infinity. Similarly, there can be multiple directional infinity as well and in the same way, there can be an all-directional infinity also.

One type of infinity can be smaller or larger than other one. Meaning of infinity is Never Ending on one or more sides. A thing which can end on all sides (like a finite line), cannot have never ending points in it.

What is meaning of 1/0?

If you have to divide $100 among zero people, it only means that you are not going to disburse any sum to anyone at all. You can distribute $100 to as many (i.e. never ending) zero persons you like. 1/0 is only Abstract Mathematics. It is good only in abstractions. It cannot be as it is applied to real physical world. More precisely, 1/0 is not the case of “never ending”. Actually it is the case of “never happening”.

The following objection was raised on my above-mentioned points:

“There cannot be infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1”. You may well be right. But if I take rationals to be discrete, as I can count them through a one to one and onto mapping with the set of integers, then there are indeed infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1. So your frame of reference and mine are very different. We cannot discuss much and can only agree to disagree on our frames of references.

My response was:

I already have dealt with the issue that a smaller and a larger “line” have exact one to one correspondence between their respective number of “points”. I made diagrams to see if really there was such one to one and onto mapping of points or not.

The actual mistake in official theory lies in the definition of “point” in Geometry. Geometry considers “point” as a “space less” particular location. Since this “point” is space less, so it is having no “length” at all. The same Geometry considers “line” as a linier combination of “points”. The same Geometry also considers that a line possesses a non-zero length but it doesn’t possess any width. But if the constituents of line i.e. “points” had no length at all then how just the combination of those “points” could result in any non-zero length…???

Anyways, this definition of “point” may be right definition in pure Abstract Mathematics. But this is not right for our physical world because there can be no space less physical entity in our spatial world. A “physical point” would be having some “space”. In fact, all the “points” would be having same or uniform non-zero space. Let’s say the length of one point is 1 and the length of a finite line is 100. It means that this line has only and only 100 (discrete) points. Points of this line CANNOT have one to one and onto mapping with the points of that line whose length is 200 or infinite.

What is the mistake of official theory…???

The official theory actually draws one to one and onto mapping not between the individual points of a shorter and a longer (or infinite) line. It actually draws one to one and onto mapping between fractional parts of individual points of shorter line with the complete individual points of longer or infinite line.

Now I give you a task. Consider the “length” of a “point” to be 1. Now take two lines. First line being shorter and second line longer.

Length of first line = 100

Length of second line = 200

In this way, there are 100 “points” in first line and there are 200 “points” in second line. Now try to draw one to one and onto mapping between all the points of first line with all the points of second line. Be careful that do not take fractional or overlapping parts of individual points of shorter line!

Believe me, you will not be able to do it, because it is an impossible task. So come out of the fantasy of old Abstract Mathematics where length of “point” is zero and sum of many zeros (i.e. a “line”) is non-zero positive length. In a physical world, any real “point” will be having non-zero positive length.

This is not the case of just difference of frames of references. It is a matter of clear-cut mistake of 0 + 0 + 0 = 3

Posted in -Home-, Mathematics, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time | 13 Comments »

Human Knowledge & its Expression:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on January 29, 2007

In my other articles like “Some Differences of Human & Animal Mind”, “Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times” and “Animism and Mythology”, I have taken “Knowledge” as equivalent to “theoretical awareness”. As it can be safely assumed that animals make no theoretical constructions. Computers etc. display theories, but they are not ‘aware’ of any theory. So “theoretical awareness” can be considered as the unique property of only humans. But the fact that animals are generally aware of their environment, raises the question that if all knowledge theoretical? Following article is basically an attempt to reply this question.

As already has been stated that “theoretical awareness” is the unique property of only humans. My opinion is just that we can consider only this type of ‘awareness’ as ‘knowledge’. There can be other modes of ‘awareness’ also. It does not seem wrong to not treat other forms of ‘awareness’ as ‘knowledge’. Awareness can be as remote as like a thermometer being ‘aware’ of body temperature as it can show exact amount of temperature. This type of awareness is neither ‘theoretical’ nor ‘conscious’. Only thing here is that let’s say mercury expansion has direct relationship with temperature. Mercury, in a sense, is ‘sensitive’ to heat or temperature. Mercury shall show a specific ‘response’ i.e. of expansion, whenever it shall be exposed to heat. But this type of ‘sensitiveness’ and ‘responsiveness’ is totally mechanical. Mechanical actions can be considered to be quite rigid, constant, blind and above all, ‘non-conscious’. We say, just for our own convenience, that thermometer is ‘aware’ of temperature. In fact it is not. Fact is just that the mercury in thermometer has rigidly, blindly and unconsciously been affected on the basis of a constant physical law. It is we humans, who can take conscious notice of how much mercury has been affected through the application of heat. Then we call so measured heat as temperature. In the article on the topic “Some Differences of Human and Animal Mind”, I have defined ‘consciousness’ as the “manifested form of sensitiveness and responsiveness which originates from biological sense perception.” Now question arises is that what are the core elements of biological sensitiveness and responsiveness? In above discussion, we have recognized that mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness has to be in a constant pattern, has to be blind, rigid and non-conscious etc. An animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness will have whole different features. In an ordinary animal, there is presence of famous five senses. In addition, there is ‘memory’. This animal may show many types of responses like fear, belongingness, anger etc. etc. The issue here is that just what are the differences between the sensitiveness and responsiveness of a thermometer and those of an animal like a dog? In a thermometer, mercury will show its response only when it shall be physically exposed to heat. Mercury is ‘blind’ because it cannot show any response without physical contact with heat source, where obviously, heat source may include hot surrounding air as well. A dog, on the other hand, is not blind because it can show some response without having been physically exposed to hot surrounding area of burning fire. A dog can ‘see’ burning fire from as much distant place as to just able to ‘see’ the burning fire but not able to feel any heat thereof, and then can show its response. At this point, real ‘awareness’ comes to scene. This ‘awareness’ can be thought of as such a ‘sensitiveness’ which must have been originated, may be just partially, from “past memorized experiences”. Here it seems pertinent to mention Henri Bergson’s concept of Mind. He has conceived ‘mind’ as a faculty, which can ‘store’ past. Although I do not think that the only function of mind is to just store past and then, as Bergson says, to recall the relevant contents of past experiences upon facing the current situation. Mind, in my opinion, can have many other functions than to this one, but this definition of mind, in my assessment, does comprehensively describe an animal’s mind with the exception that still the pure instinctive actions of animals, which are generally independent of any of past experiences, are not covered by this definition. In this way, we can say that those animal actions that originate from the application of ‘stored’ past memories (may be like movie clips) upon current situation are the ‘awareness’ based actions. Other actions, that are independent of past experiences, may be considered as just ‘instinctive’ actions.

Now if we try to differentiate mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness from the sensitiveness and responsiveness of an animal, we can do it at two levels; i.e. (i) on the level of just instincts and; (ii) on the level of ‘awareness’. On the level of instincts, such things as pleasure, pain, comfort, discomfort etc. shall characterize an animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness. These things are not to be found in just mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness. Secondly, mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness is just a one-way process. The behavior of non-living entity, which is showing mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness, has to be perfectly ‘passive’. On the other hand, instincts based animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness is a two way process where animals generally show ‘active’ behavior. An animal that feels pleasure would by itself move towards the source of pleasure and similarly shall move away, at its own (i.e. by using its own biological mechanical or locomotion energy), from the sources of pains and discomforts. Now come to see the difference of mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness with animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness on the level of ‘awareness’. Animal’s mind possesses the faculty of storage of past experiences and the ability to recall relevant past experiences upon facing the current situation. Actually, it seems that animal mind is able to store the related or “associated” observations in serially connected form. What I mean is that let’s say an animal, which is ‘aware’ of ways of its routine path etc. shall recall the next turn or way-out after having reached that particular place where that next turn is situated. It means that animal’s mind, where past experiences have been stored, shall retrieve the corresponding relevant information i.e. about next turn, only when the animal shall again perceive the place of that turn. It is simply not appropriate to suppose the presence of any such ability in animals that they could have some sort of imaginative mapping of ways of their usual route. In this way, in animals, process of sense perception continuously keeps on drawing next relevant information from the storeroom of past experiences i.e. mind; because sense perception itself is a continuous process. And since past experiences are guiding animal here, so we can consider this type of animal behavior to be based on ‘awareness’. In the same way, animals can memorize (i.e. store) the information regarding what to do upon listening particular commands of their Masters and can retrieve that information from memory whenever they listen those commands. In addition, animals can expect or anticipate the commands by their Masters as well. But it seems that they can have such expectations only in the presence of those Masters.

Now we can try to differentiate between this type of animal awareness and the ‘theoretical awareness’ that can be found in our perceivable world, only in humans. First of all we should accept that basically, or by birth, humans do not possess anything like ‘theoretical awareness’. Innately, humans possess only ‘learning potential’ as well as certain tendencies for it. I shall discuss these tendencies at pertinent stage. Human childs acquire or learn theoretical propositions or other theoretical stuff only and mainly out of their experience of living in human groups or society. Without going into the speculations regarding just how primitive theoretical knowledge could have been evolved in early human societies, we can just assume that it might have been so evolved as a result of very long term processes. I have mentioned earlier that it is not appropriate to suppose that animals can have anything like ‘imaginative mapping’ of their ‘stored past’ because it is only the process of sense perception in animals, that can retrieve or draw the relevant past contents out of memory. But for the case of humans, it is pertinent to suppose the presence of ‘imaginative mapping’ of past contents even for the case of such an hypothetical individual human who gets no experience of living in human group or society at all. Due to this ‘imaginative mapping’, humans are able to recall those past contents in their fresh memory (or conscious mind) that may not have any linkage with their existing sensory information. Due to this ability, humans, for instance can recall and tell ways of path of some other city while standing on a different location of another city. In this way, actually humans can imaginatively ‘explore’ the storeroom of past experiences. And although humans can imaginatively explore the past experiences of mind but it seems that they cannot reach up to a particular past memory content just arbitrarily. What seems right is that they can reach up to a particular past memory content only through a chain like process. For example, in order that I may recall ways of path of some other city, first of all I need to bring the idea of that other city to my conscious mind. With the idea of that city in my conscious mind, then I shall recall different spots of the path etc. and then, only through this chain like process, I shall be able to tell the complete path to some other person. I shall discuss the structure of this chain like process in some other article. The thing to be emphasized here is that the ability of ‘imaginative mapping’ of past experiences exists only in humans and that although this ability itself is not equivalent to humans’ ‘theoretical knowledge’, but the same ‘imaginative mapping’ is an important source of this ‘theoretical knowledge’. The same ‘imaginative map’ is the source of origin of all human thinking, imaginations and dreams as well. Due to having this ‘imaginative mapping’, humans are in need to ‘express’ this map of stored past experiences. They can do it in the form of let’s say artwork like drawings as well as in theoretical format. Archeological evidences of various cave-artworks reveal that humans used to express their ‘imaginative maps’ in the form of drawings in as early period as about fifty thousand years ago. Evidences of theoretical expressions are relatively quite recent.

Human mind, unlike animal mind, not only stores past experiences, it also alters or modifies those past memory contents. For the case of animals, what can be safely assumed is that they do generalize various past experiences but obviously, to a far lesser extent to what humans can do in this respect. What only humans do and so animals cannot be supposed to be able to do is that humans can draw analogical as well as other inductive and deductive conclusions. And the limitation of human mind is that every kind of conclusion or inference, whether it is simple generalization or analogical or it is any other form of inductive or deductive inference, is not more than just a re-arrangement of already possessed past experiences. Suppose there are two experience based similar entities (Aab) and (Babc) in human mind. Let’s say, A and B are two students. A is experimentally known to have ‘a’ and ‘b’ qualities and similarly B is experimentally known to be the possessor of ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ qualities. On the basis of this information, this human mind can draw an analogical conclusion that probably A possesses ‘c’ quality as well. Here this mind has assigned ‘c’ quality to A at its own i.e. without any prior experimental test. In this way, there has been some addition to mind contents because previously mind had only experimental data whereas now mind is having an analogical inference also, in addition to the old experimental data. It means that mind is having some new information that has not directly come from sense experience. And although this new information has not directly come from sense experience but the fact to be noted is that the same new information has come indirectly from the same sense experience. Mind has come to know something quite independently of sense experience. But in fact mind has not created anything at its own. In more understandable words of our information age, mind just has performed a copy-paste thing. It just has copied quality ‘c’ that belonged to B and then has assigned this copied entity to A. In analogy, mind only performs copy-paste whereas usually doesn’t perform cut-paste.

In the same way, in any other form of conclusion or inference, mind does not create anything at its own. It just re-arranges, or modifies the given information and then presents so modified information in such way that gives some new meanings. For example, consider the following simple example of a deductive conclusion:

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore All A are C

Here we can suppose that premises of this argument had come from sense experience whereas now mind has reached to the deductive conclusion i.e. “All A are C”, at its own. In a general sense, this conclusion is the product of mind. But in a more technical sense, this conclusion is not any creation of mind because not a single word of conclusion “All A are C”, is a whole new thing. In fact all the words of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In this deductive conclusion, mind has just re-arranged the information, which was contained in the premises.

In this way, we can say that unlike animal mind, human mind not only stores past experiences, it re-arranges or alters those past experiences as well. In addition, unlike animals, human mind contains many abstract entities also because due to the process of sense experience and thinking and imaginations, humans can identify many abstract entities like beauty, friendship, mind, knowledge etc. etc. Humans’ ‘imaginative map’ thus not only includes original sensory information, it includes abstract entities and re-arranged, modified or altered information as well. And humans are in need to ‘express’ this type of imaginative map. And again, as already has been described, humans usually do it in theoretical format or in the form of drawings or some other artwork etc.

Now we can discuss the main issue i.e. is all knowledge theoretical? The above discussion actually implies a relatively more technical definition of knowledge, which may be stated like: “Knowledge means those stored past experiences, that may include original sensory data as well as abstract and re-arranged or altered information, which can be expressed with or without having been exposed to the associated or relevant current sense perception. In addition to being able to be ‘expressed’, those stored (original plus altered) experiences must be able to set guidelines for present or even future attitudes, behaviors and/ or actions”. We should consider that ‘knowledge’ is far complicated thing than to this definition and that this definition is trying to describe only some particular aspects of ‘knowledge’.

In this way, we can differentiate between ‘knowledge’ and just ‘awareness’. ‘Knowledge’ includes ‘awareness’ whereas just ‘awareness’ may not be accompanied with ‘knowledge’. Awareness is just ‘sensitiveness’ that comes, at least partially, from past memorized experiences upon facing current relevant sense perceptions; and it may include corresponding ‘responsiveness’ as well. ‘Knowledge’ on the other hand must be able to be ‘expressed’ as well as it may not have any relation with currently-perceived sensory information. In addition, knowledge should be able to set guidelines for present or even future attitudes, behaviors and/ or actions.

Knowledge therefore may be considered to be the ability to express (original plus altered) past. Secondly, ‘awareness’ is also other main component of knowledge. So in lose sense, only ‘theoretical awareness’ can be considered as ‘knowledge’. In a strict sense, combination of ‘awareness’ with any mode of expression such as theoretical expression or artistic expression or any other form of expression can be regarded as knowledge. The foundation of this knowledge is the ‘imaginative map’ of past experiences. This map is not the true picture of past because it includes such altered contents as well that may range from just vague and meaningless conclusions to marvelous metaphysical theories etc. This imaginative map sometimes reflects itself in disorganized or random styles in the forms of dreams and illusions, and the same imaginative map can reflect itself in very accurately constructed pieces of arts as well as logically/ mathematically and grammatically accurate pieces of philosophies, sciences and literature. It has been mentioned earlier that although theoretical awareness is not innate in humans, but humans do possess some pre-given tendencies that can refine and improve the quality of ‘imaginative map’ and also help in the process of construction of theoretical mind stuff. These pre-given tendencies are that humans, with passage of mind related experiences, tend to become logically, mathematically and grammatically more accurate and consistent and artistically and poetically more precise and balanced. As we live in already civilized age, so we get introduction to theoretical knowledge from the society. I already have stated that discussion in this article shall not go to speculations regarding just how theoretical knowledge first time originated in human societies. But however, it seems right to point out that these pre-given tendencies might be having a great role in the original creation of theoretical mind stuff. Theoretical stuff itself is not knowledge but it makes us ‘able’ to express our ‘imaginative map’. Our tendencies of becoming logically and mathematically more accurate and consistent can work on raw ‘imaginative map’; but it seems that these pre-given tendencies work more efficiently on theoretical mind stuff. When we logically, mathematically and grammatically improve our theoretical mind stuff, then actually we also make corresponding refinements and improvements in our ‘imaginative map’. And every segment of theoretical stuff corresponds to more than one aspect of ‘imaginative map’ and vice versa. By having a particular theoretical proposition in our conscious mind, we are having its related aspects of ‘imaginative map’ also in our conscious mind and vice versa. And just like that we can explore our imaginative map only through a chain like process, each and every bit of theoretical stuff also can be accessed (recalled/ expressed) only through a chain like process. Let’s say I have memorized page No.110 of a particular book. Normally, I shall recall the contents of this memorized theoretical stuff only through such a chain like process that I shall start telling it from first word and shall tell or express the complete page word by word. The chain is like that while uttering second word; I shall get a ‘spark’ of what is going to be the third word and by following that ‘spark’, I shall utter that third word; then I shall get similar ‘spark’ for next word and so on. This chain like process should be compared with photo copying process of photocopy machine that instantly copies all the contents of page. Secondly, it is very difficult to suppose that let’s say a classical singer is fully aware of all the complicated ups and downs of music before starting to perform. The fact, that seems right is that the singer shall start singing; and at stage of every bit of up or down in the music, he shall get similar ‘spark’ regarding what to perform in the very next moment. And then he shall give a continuous performance in this way. The wave of ups and downs of music is not “hard-coded” in his mind. Actually each and every bit of those ups and downs is just recalled, through a chain like process, at the right stage. The guiding factor behind this process is not any “hard-coded” material but seems to be consisted of many pre-given tendencies of humans, out of which “sense of musical balance” may be considered to be the main guiding factor behind this particular process.

Similarly, knowledge does not reside in mind like any “hard-coded” theoretical propositions. Whenever we are required to ‘express’ knowledge, we start exploring our ‘imaginative map’, obviously in a chain like way; then some of corresponding theoretical stuff also comes to conscious mind. Our innate tendencies of keeping ourselves logically, mathematically and grammatically accurate also come to action. These tendencies, instantly, help in translating the exploration of ‘imaginative map’ into the logically connected and interrelated theoretical propositions. In this way, we theoretically describe our ‘imaginative map’. In the same way, we can instantly interpret the currently observed any new phenomenon and can describe it theoretically.

Thus existence of imaginative map is a great advancement in humans. It cannot be said with surety that other animals do not possess this kind of imaginative map at all. What can be said safely is that the most advanced imaginative map of any animal would still be inferior to very rough and less developed imaginative map of any primitive human. And as we live in already civilized societies, so the imaginative maps of our past experiences include various kinds of theoretical stuff as well. It means that here, theoretical stuff being a part of imaginative map, may not have its existence apart from, or distinguished from the imaginative map. The systematic structure of theoretical propositions and language helps us in refining and improving our over-all imaginative maps. We tend to keep our imaginative map and our expressions logically, mathematically and grammatically accurate. Theories of logic, mathematics and grammar etc. in this way, have been discovered out of our own general tendencies. Humans are much more than animals and it is not right to think that human knowledge is just some quantitative advancement in animal intelligence.

Posted in -Home-, Human Mind Vs Animal Mind, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Theory of Knowledge | 9 Comments »