Sunday, 25 May 2014

The scientific explanation of reality: all bits but no its

( Special Note : This paper was peer-reviewed by the 'International Society for Universal Dialogue', and accepted for presentation at their 13th Congress, held in Romania in July 2014)

Though not declared officially, science believes in materialistic monism. It believes that it can explain every aspect of reality in a matter centric paradigm. Though science in its institutionalized form today was the net outcome of the scientific-spirit that blossomed  in the 15t and 16th centuries, it appears that it has abandoned this spirit altogether, and opted to sit proudly upon the huge bundle of its technological achievements!  

To cite a few examples, let us first take up the question of the beginning of the universe according to scientific explanation. It says the whole was a single point in the beginning, and it exploded in a Big-bang some 16 billion ago. Stephen Hawking describes science’s smart logic of evading what is unknowable, and then take-up only that is within the quantifiable realm:

This discovery ( the big bang)finally brought the question of the beginning of universe into the realm of science[…]in the the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined 2

Science simply ignores the fundamental of a pure logic, that when inferences are drawn after  discarding factors of the superstructure of  any organization, it can not be fully true about the infrastructure, because both aspects together make-up the reality. Both can not be independent and stand-alone entities.

Take one more example, the theory of biological evolution, the stand of science about the origin of life and its gradual progress. According to science, it all caused out of a pure accident some 3-4 billion years ago.  By the falling of sun-rays, or a spark from a  lightening falling upon a ‘primordial soup’ of water minerals, life had suddenly emerged in the form of an organic protein molecule. The rest of the story was constructed and told by Charles Darwin, and it has become the scientific explanation of life and its gradual evolutionary process. Science always depends on some or other superstitious story at its superstructure level to explain the infrastructure level reality. Theory of evolution is one of the most rigid scientific dogmas of the day, that all other theories of science attempt to correlate itself with it.

Some of the grave philosophical and logical inconsistencies of the evolution theory has been brought out by the author, Palakudy J.Abraham in one of his blogs :
1. its from bits: a phrase coined by ‘John wheeler’ who earlier famously coined the term ‘black-hole’. 

2. Hawking. Stephen.  A brief history of time,1992, 12.Bantam Books, UK

Man, animals and plants are aggregates of live cells. It is the cell that mutates to bring forth evolutionary changes. Now the question is, what triggers the mutation? Is it a pre-designed, pre-determined periodical routine of nature, or the sudden changes in the habitat of living units that trigger the need for mutation for better adaptation1

What the author argues is that the consciousness of living organisms, whether it is an ameba or a human being, is never heard to have the foresight or will  to mutate itself, in order to adapt efficiently with the habitat. They are absolutely incapable of imagining what mutated form would help it to cope with the new habitat. So, we are compelled to believe that it was nature herself who had wished to mutate, in order to adapt to her own periodical course of massive environmental changes!

In all practical sense, it has adopted rather a dogmatic stance on the physical base of reality, abandoning the old spirit of openness, pure objectivity, and absence of prejudices. At least its ordinary followers ( or believers ?) get agitated at the very mention of anything other than a materialistic explanation of the reality of existence and life 

This paper intends to analyze the reason behind it, or the blind presumptions behind science’s having been adopted the above stand. The paper also will attempt to expose the weak base behind such unverified presumptions.

The following are the chief unverified presumptions of science that led science to claim physical base for the whole reality:

1)      That external sense-organs  are the whole and sole source of primary human knowledge. Nothing in the mind is inherent, but whatever man does is learned behavioural traits
2)      Despite the crucial evidence gathered by the high-energy physicists  from the sub-atomic particle world experiments, that the myth of science’s ability to gain objective knowledge- independent of the observer is no more valid, it is yet to absolutely shed the old dogma. Those experiments show that science’s old belief in an objective reality independent of  the observer is a well exposed myth  

3)      It’s reluctance to distinguish  between the structure and substance realm, and accept the said paradigm as a more central category of  every known form of reality than the cause and effect paradigm. It is also the result of a naïve dogma that the hard-ware as it is in a computer, could act as a self-sustaining system without a soft-ware programme to run the hardware.

Scientific spirit vs: science’s dogmas : Scientific spirit was all about the value of discarding the old, unverified dogmas, and embracing the new knowledge and knowledge-forms with an open mind. Observation and analysis gather new data and new axioms continuously.
1.Palakudy J.Abraham.Google blogger. Leading intellectual dogmas that negatively influenced modern world. 2013.sub-heading 1, para 15.Accessed on Feb 5, 2014,

Hence, even if they disturb the very foundation of any already established scientific dictum, it must be ready to abandon the old, and embrace the new reality. It must incorporate every newly arrived evidence instantly, and build-up a new science every now and then. Sticking on to old and established knowledge forms will make it not different from dogmatic disciplines like religions.

Now let us take up the above four presumptions of science one by one, and see how could it make itself more open, more akin to its original spirit of science.

1)      Incomplete knowledge of science, as to how do we know:

Due to the great lag between the development in physics and development in cognitive sciences, what we know has gained greater relevance over how do we know. What are the various aspects of this serious lag ?

a)      The obsession with the centrality of sense data : Science still believe that external objects creates certain firing of neurons in the brain, to register the sensation. The subject of experience,  ie. the living species, goes on registering such external data throughout its life, and using its ever increasing aggregate effect to improve its survival needs. There is nothing in the mind that was not there in the senses previously. Every behaviour is learned in the process of survival, and then carried-forward to the next generation through the genetic route.

If science admits the existence of any inherent drive, with its root beyond the learned habits, such admission would directly hint at non-physical elements in life. The volcanic urge of man that compel him to seek knowledge and bring order and consistency to his knowledge, and a series of similar, well observable drives that lead him to set-behaviour patterns etc. haven’t yet prompted science to look for the roots of such urges.

Abraham.J.Palakudy, an independent researcher on mind, argues that these drives are similar to laws of motion for material objects, discovered by Newton:  

If the laws of motion, the basic  inherent ‘drives’ of matter are what determine the motion of  physical bodies, why can’t we presume that similar drives of the emotional  body and mind of man too are nature’s means to determine the life related behavioural motions of
Man 1?

Instead of describing reality in its most wholesome form, science seems to be chained to the category of some kind of ‘solidness’ attached to the category of ‘physical’.
1..Palakudy.,  J .Abraham. Google Blogger.. ’Mind: Existential drives of man and other blogs on mind’ .2013. para.4. Accessed 5,Feb 2014.

The latest in the above line of thinking is Cybernetics, or the ‘information’ theory. It suggests that existence is driven by the forces of ‘information’. Natural evolution is a self sustaining process, wherein species produce and use information the most optimal manner, thus saving energy and increasing efficiency and survival tactics, in a never ending process.  

Old aversion to the hegemony of Church and Her dogmas seems still tormenting the mind of the Western-man, and therefore, he is unable to think of a possible scientific reality that might be linked  to an equally scientific law of mind too, free  of  all religious concepts. He can easily embrace such a notion, once he is helped to abandon his dogma about his hardened notions about the ‘physical’.

b)      The  role of the yet unrecognized faculties of mind in the act of knowing: When science goes on making laws after laws, and claims after claims on nature and world, it does not stop for a moment to seriously look into his various faculties of mind that helped him achieve such feats, or equipped it to form such laws.

How do scientists fix the logical relation between the evidences he has collected in support of his theory and the conclusion he has arrived at ? He would say it was his faculty of reason that was behind the feat. But unlike the faulty of smell or sight that create certain neuron firing inside specific locations in the brain that directs the mind to identify the sensation from the memory, what kind of neuron firing takes place when such logical order is identified between the pieces of evidence and the hypothesis in question in the mind ?

Such order might be based on an analogy  that already exists in the mind concerned with a similar past connection, or at times a not yet heard or known novel relation similar to something that Einstein was able to connect his theory of relativity with. Remember, Einstein’s was a new theory mankind had never heard of ! Still our faculty of reason
could approve it, based on the probable ‘order’ buds available in the brain to approve the logic of such relation ! We would probably jump to say that we could observe the pieces of evidence, but sensing such never heard relation demands much more than merely observing the pieces of evidence. Logically linking and relating what has been observed is an entirely different act from the passive observation. 

In short, more than what the external sense organs collect, and mind processes in the role of a motherboard, there are many, not yet fully recognized faculties that aid our knowledge making process. This mystery faculty that provides sense of order, consistency and ‘unity’ to what has been observed is much more central to fixing exactness to our knowledge than the laborious exercise of data gathering.

There is no doubt that similar to the way science is centrally depended on the certainty of sense information that our external sense organs provide, it is unknowingly more depended on the above described, mystery faculty, or the sense- organ that detects or senses the order factor between what has been observed and the hypothesis formed.

The order ( or consistency, unity, or plain sense ) factor, at close look, is very similar to the other known  external ‘sense’ categories, or qualities of existence, like our sight, smell, taste etc. These are nature’s own specially schemed instruments or faculties that create and constitute human knowledge !

We should be logically compelled to believe that there could be other, yet again un-known, such ‘categories or qualities about existence that man has not been provided sense organs to detect or know them!

While external sense organs provide us with raw stimuli, mind add them to the memory and create cumulative knowledge. To create new relations and make new laws, we have just seen the central role of the internal ‘sense’ organ of ‘order’, or our faculty of reason.

The point that gets exposed here is that it is not our intellectual prowess that help us in creating new knowledge and knowledge axioms, but another pre-ordained sense organ of logical order, inherent in the mind.

But this order providing organ, the not yet recognized  sense organ, could provide order only to the spectrum of premises in-front of it ! When premises are formed based on the surface level observations, a surface level conclusion will be the result. To overcome this draw-back, nature has attached, another  yet to be recognized PRISMATIC 1 function to the above organ of Reason.

When a seeker of knowledge feed any particular ray of thought or idea to his sense organ of reason and contemplate, it splits the fed ray of thought, or idea into its all sub-ideas, possibilities and options in  a typical ‘spectrum’ like illumination. This inherent faculty of mind helped are man’s every invention, and new ideas ! Many a times, the new premises that emerge from the spectrum prove the older theories inconsistent with the new finding. Newton’s mechanical view of world was proved inadequate to the newly found quantum theory, was one of the examples of this natural process.

It not only destabilizes old theories and believes like in Newton’s theory , but also creates unheard social theories even. The American revolutionists declared that ‘rights and liberty of man’ were ‘self-evident’ truths ! No one can find any supportive premises from the past social history of man, to base these declared ‘rights’ of man.
1.Palakudy J. Abraham. E. Book. ‘Is reason a sense organ ? A super-mind above he known mind?’ Amazon. com, p.17.   
Another example to show that this faculty, or the sense organ of ‘order’ often works independently of any past observed relation is the mind’s ability to detect the fact of ‘less order’( inconsistent, or inadequate logic) in arguments, when the supportive arguments are weak, or poor. We all are endowed with this natural faculty, provided we are familiar with the subject of discussion.

Here the final point is, how can such tenets of high ‘order’ be present in human mind unlearned, but inherent ? It is exactly similar to the inherent faculty of our eyes to see, and ears to hear. The difference is that, here what the new sense organ detects or senses is not physical objects or events, but the much more crucial and central ‘sensible’ relation factor between them ! This category of ‘order’ that helps us to make sense of things, events  and even science, is obviously not always a product of man’s past experience, as seen above. It is an alien category endowed to man by nature, and his realities are validated by it, and it alone. But man often naively claims that they are products of his own intelligence and rational powers.

This mystery internal sense organ is what provides SENSE to whatever we claim as truth and theory, whether it is science’s latest cybernetics theory, or Copernicus’ old heliocentric theory.

c) How does science succeed in proving theories by supportive proofs and experiments?    

Veteran scientist Albert North Whitehead had written:

 Discussions on the method of science wander off onto the topic of experiment. But experiment is nothing else than a mode ok cooking the facts for the sake of exemplifying the law1.

A reasonably good number of pieces of evidence could prove a theory. But a similar number of hidden, or not considered at the time of arriving at the theory, that might question the very veracity of the said theory might be always lying outside in the world, unknown to mankind. Reason will be bound only by the evidences available upfront, unless it is put to task endlessly for pondering over the end truth in every given field of knowledge, utilizing its ‘prismatic’ function ! Thus, every theory we make is like various rest-stations that mountaineers make on their way to the ultimate peak. .  

When referring to Logic, most of us refer only to the formal ‘forms’ of logic, and not  to the actual content. Bertrand Russell was sharp enough to pin-point this common fallacy:
1. Whitehead.Albert North. Essay. Foresight.Chap.V1.part.1.’Essays in Philosophy’. Edit.Houston Peterson.1974,367.New York. Pocket Books

 form is not another constituent, but is the way the constituents are put together…..
It is obvious that the knowledge of logical forms is something quite different from knowledge of existing things….we may also have knowledge of the form without having knowledge of the constituent1.

He also touches the ‘extra-experience’ role of the faculty of ‘reason, in arriving at conclusions:

Logical knowledge is not derivable from experience alone, and the empiricist’s philosophy can therefore not to be accepted in the entirety…..we must therefore admit that there is general knowledge but not derived from sense, and that some of this knowledge is not obtained by inference but ‘primitive’2.

In some of his later works, he said to have clarified that by primitive, what he had meant was intuitive sources. From what we have observed above about the mystery role of the sense organ of reason in every inference, we could see that those primitive source is nothing but the inherent faculty of reason itself ! It’s very job is to provide sense to whatever we gather through the senses, the so called empirical method. This ‘sense’ factor is always outside the realm of the external sense inputs. It is an ‘in-itself’ quality in existence. We simply use it, and then feel or experience the ‘exactness’ about our knowledge.     

Therefore, science’s description of reality based only on empirical data, without taking into consideration the above seen unrecognized but clearly observable mystery faculties of mind and reason, can be treated only as ‘workable models’. Mind and its various external and internal organs and faculties are the very tool or instrument for man, to know his realities. What anyone who engaged in the mission of inquiry and search must ensure is that, he knows what his tools are, and how he would analyze the data received from them meaningfully. The irony is that men of science frequently make use of the said mystery faculties of reason, but not aware that he has such a faculty. He is always  depending on them for his routine scientific feats. Knowing these tools at clinical angle would enhance science’s reach, as well as the wholesomeness of her endeavors.

2)      Despite the end of the myth of ‘objective’ knowledge independent of the observer, in the aftermath of the sub-atomic particle field experiments, science is yet to implement it in her day to day philosophy

Now we are moving to the 2nd major unverified presumption of science, about the very foundation of objective knowledge. As we all know, the assumption of science that there exists an external reality independent of any observer, constitute the very foundation of science.
  1. Russell.Bertrand. Lowell lectures. ‘Essays in Philosophy’ Edit. Houston Petrseon.1974,297.New York. Pocket Books 
  2. Russel.1974,293

Now, even after clear indication and overt reference to this effect from senior physicists that, the era of the above myth is over, ever since the opposite evidences experienced from the high-energy physics field of experiments, mainstream science is yet to implement this very important finding in her day today work and approach.

The following quotes from Fritjof Capra’s best seller book ‘The Tao of  Physics’, self-explains the above referred revolutionary shift:

 as we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated ‘basic building blocks’, but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole. These relations always include the observer in an essential way’…
The properties of any atomic object can only be understood in terms of the object’s interaction with the observer1

Niels Bohr, another veteran physicist supports it:

isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interactions with other systems’2

Heisenberg :

 Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves 3

It should become clear to mankind from now on that, our science is only our own species’ ‘collectively’ subjective knowledge system. Under strict logic, we could compare them with the rude scientific endeavors of many animal species: monkeys insert long plant reeds into white-ant mounts and bee-hives to pick the target food items. Capuchin monkeys routinely roll down heavy stones from hill tops to scare away predator leopards. They also permanently keep a flat stone  as a base to break hard-shelled nuts.

 Having been able to semantically name each and every object and event of our experience should not mean that we have had complete knowledge of the world. It primarily contribute only towards our academic scholasticism.
1. Capra.Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. Chaucer Press, 1979,71.Bungay, Suffolk
2 Capra. Tao of Physics.141
3.Capra. Tao of Physics.144

3)      Do science believe that the ‘Hardware’ of any system is self-sustainable without a Software to run on it ?

With our human kind of understanding, sense and reason, we can not think of any physical object to work or act on its own. When we hear of a stone rising up in the air on its own, we discard the story as superstition or heresy. But at the same time our mainstream science believes that matter is self-sustaining in itself, as the programme (soft-ware) with which it runs, is itself an inherent trait of matter, ie. the programme of evolution. Indirectly, it approves the existence of a soft-ware, ie, the programme of evolution, but refuse to accept and recognize it as the role of a ‘mind’ like organization, that runs along-side the matter organization.

This issue is akin to the more fundamental problem between determinism and Free-will. Though quantum theory seriously questions determinism, science is yet to come into terms with the said reality.

Same kind of a serious contradiction exists in the matter of energy conservation theory and the empirical phenomenon of entropy, the law of  gradual, irrecoverable energy loss in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 

The said dilemma of science can be solved only by its accepting some kind of a duality of mind and matter, wherein it accepts existence of a different set of laws, and even energy form in existence, that determine the working of the mind. In other simple and more direct words, a hardware system is a passive structure for a compatible software system to run on it. The former is simply a device meant for, and designed to accommodate the latter.

Accepting the inevitable existence of such a software program in the realm of existence need not drag science into the realm of religion, a belief system in the omnipresent, unexplainable power behind life and existence. Instead, it need to be only applying  the plain but coveted ‘scientific spirit’ into such inquiries, by being open-minded to probe into a different source of energy, or the probable laws of nature that runs parallel to the physical realm. A hint is already given at the following portion of this paper as to what could be such different source of energies are.

The paradigm of substance and structure: 

We know that the law of causality is central for science. It says, whatever  that happens must have the support of a fitting, well explainable cause. If the heavenly bodies are fast traveling away in an ever expanding space, the cause of for this phenomenon is attributed to the Big bang. The impact of the Big-bang is still continuing, in the form of stars moving away from each at high speed. When a cause is attributed to any given event, it is equal to proving the veracity of the event, science believes.

But if we look at each event as if it were one in a chain of multiple sequential events, the cause-effect paradigm losses its scientific centrality. Each event in question turns out to be only one in a multitude of events in a given sequence, it takes away the role of ‘cause’ in strict logical sense. Instead of cause it would turnout only the preceding event in the chain of sequence. For example, rain is not strictly caused by the heavily-loaded water vapor particles in the clouds. The cause there was only one event in the long sequence of multiple events, like sun heating water bodies on earth, the vapor flying up in the air to form clouds etc. Search for the ultimate cause for every event in life and existence will lead to metaphysics, instead of physics.

When the cause-effect paradigm proves its naïve-ness to explain the wholesomeness of life and existence, as it is good enough to explain only pockets of isolated realities, the relevance of a more fundamental paradigm that helps to explain reality more wholesomely comes to surface. It could be the paradigm of substance and structure, or structure and essence.

Substance and structure, in a way, is cause and effect paradigm applied to the whole reality, instead of the pockets of isolated realities. Cause, if taken as the first cause of every sequence of events that exists in the world, as once mentioned earlier, will naturally lead us to the singular cause behind everything that exists. Such first cause may not be a mathematical equation as the matter centric science might infer. But it could be an emotion content, a predisposition that had prompted the whole to come into being ! This emotion content is the hidden energy source that we have referred to, in the previous portion of this paper.

 Whatever that exist as a tangible object or event in the world, it is some kind of a structure, or a hardware as in our previous example, schemed as a means for some kind of a known or unknown  substance. Our sense of reason would readily agree to the above proposition, as it is a very sensible ( logical) deduction.

What is the paradigm of substance and structure ?

Every object in existence, as it appears to our sense organs and mind, is some kind of a structure. If it is a leaf, it has color, shape, its atomic structure etc as part of its structure. (We need not compare this example with the old division of the quality of objects into primary and secondary ) It has a certain ‘predilection’ or pre-disposition also, for which the structure is only a means.

This predilection or predisposition need not wear a metaphysical colour as in Kant’s phenomena and noumena division. This  predisposition of structure is meant here only as a specific  experience to the particular subject in the world. What experiencing subjects in the world actually experience is NOT the structure, but the predisposition or the predilection of every object and event ! This proposition angle makes the whole difference very clear. The end products in the world as it appear to the sense-mind mechanism should be the central object of probe of science. It should not exclusively dedicate the ‘structure’ realm as her only field of enquiry. The end product-life-runs more on emotional directions than the typical physical laws.

Structure of everything is designed in such a way that it serves the purpose of the essence. Take a car, a man made structure. The structure is specifically designed to serve the purpose of the car; to carry passengers for fast travel. This means is the essence of the car, and same is the case with leaves, sun, moon, the sea, an atom, and the finally, the wholesome structure known to man, our universe.

Science is concerned only with the structure of every object of its probes. It totally ignore its aspect of substance or the essence, or even disagree with the fact that every structure essentially and inevitably should have an essence, or substance too. Science naively concludes that existence is a Zero-sum game, with out any specific purpose other than its being there for its own sake ! Evolution is explained as the process of this zero-sum game of existence, with the goal of optimum conservation of energy, or information and knowledge, for maintaining the ultimate material balance of the universe. What outright rejects such models of science is our above referred sense of reason, the ultimate judge of the veracity of man’s conclusions. Such conclusions might have the support of many evidences, but it ignore or do not take into consideration an entire realm of opposite evidences. Or, in other worlds, such theories fail to explain the entire known realm of human experience, and aspects of life ! In the words of Whitehead again, such evidences might be good enough to exemplify the law, but it ignore equal or more number of opposite evidences when life and existence as a whole is taken into consideration.  

The above obstinate stand of science about the Zero-sum nature of existence is equal to accepting some kind of a predisposition.( an essence or substance) But such essence it refers to is a cold, and purely mathematical essence. In summary, science indeed accepts a software programme behind the physical world, in the form of its evolutionary direction. So, one can say that scientific explanation of reality suffers only in the matter of an inadequate ‘essence’ of ‘substance’ that it attribute to such reality.   

Finally, 'its' from bits' dilemma

Stephen Hawking said:

 if everything in the universe depends on everything else in a fundamental way, it might be impossible to get close to a full solution by investigating’ parts’  of the problem in isolation 1.
1. Hawking. Stephen.  A brief history of time,1992, 12.Bantam Books, UK

This vital observation indicates that, till every localized laws of science is linked together by one single logic, and one universal premise, we could only endow them
status of working solutions, for meeting our day to day issues. Logic need to be understood and re-defined as one master-relation at the start of a string, and every isolated pocket of logic that we use to explain localized events must necessarily be linked logically to the said ‘master-relation’, in the form of a chain of well connected events.

If human system of logic follow such a must law and precedent, the tendency of mankind and its various institution finding a suitable local logic for justifying every localized decision and conclusion would come to an end. Mankind will get a clear intellectual and logical direction in every field of activity, such as science, politics, industry and education.

Sir Arthur Eddington had also sounded a stand similar to that of Stephen Hawking on the various feats of science in explaining reality:

the external world of physics has been formulated as an answer to a particular problem encountered in human experience…as he might take up a cross-word problem encountered in a newspaper. His sole business is to see that the problem is correctly solved[..}
     the scheme of physics is now formulated in such a way as to make it almost self-  evident that it is a partial aspect of something wider 1

The above words of the most senior men of science clearly reveal the nature of the scientific explanations of the world; they are explanations of localized realities, a few among an infinite number of them. It can not  claim any knowledge of whatever is the whole reality. The imaginative models of the its it make are not different from similar models of such whole that religions make. When science calls the religious models ‘superstitions’, she should means only that the organs of knowing of both parties claim using for the job are different, the same way a blind man’s way of making his realities are different from that of a deaf man !

Such explanations of science about reality cannot be strictly called anything other than mainstream superstitions of our present age. Our previous ages too had similar superstitious description of reality, like the Geo-centric theory etc, which our modern age has replaced with new findings and new theories. Similarly, many of our present mainstream account of scientific reality also would be replaced  by the more enlightened future generations.  ( END )
1. Eddington. Sir Arthur. Nature of the physical world. .’ Philosophers of Science’.Edit. Saxe Commins and Robert N.Linscot. Modern Pocket Library. (?)424, New York

Author: Abraham J.Palakudy ( Founder of conscience of the society: a philosophical non-profit organisation)
Special Note: This is a peer-reviewed and accepted paper, scheduled to be presented at an International philosophical forum in July 2014. 

References :

.Palakudy J.Abraham. 2013. ‘Leading intellectual dogmas that negatively influenced modern world’.

Palakudy.,  J .Abraham. 2013, ’Mind: Existential drives of man and other blogs on mind’ .

Palakudy J. Abraham.2012, E. Book. ‘Is reason a sense organ ? A super-mind above he known mind?’ .

Whitehead .Albert North.1974..’Essays in Philosophy’. Edit.Houston Peterson.,367.New York. Pocket Books

Russell.Bertrand. 1974. ‘Essays in Philosophy’ Edit. Houston Petrseon.,297, 293.New York. Pocket Books

Capra.Fritjof. 1979, The Tao of Physics. Chaucer Press, 71,141,144,Bungay, Suffolk

Hawking. Stephen.1992,  A brief history of time,12.Bantam Books. UK

Eddington. Sir Arthur( ?) Nature of the physical world. .’ Philosophers of Science’.Edit. Saxe Commins and Robert N.Linscot. Modern Pocket Library. (?)424, New York


1 comment: