The difference between reality and perception

Zak Ruf wrote in ‘From the Physical to the Social Signs’ – ‘We have no basis to say that the reasons which the principles of physics inaugurate are the true nature of things.’ Take electrons, protons etc. for example. No real scientist can say what their true nature is. The form in which they are described is just the qualities required to relate various observations of scientists. The full details of their actual authority are not known.

This ‘indefiniteness’ invented by science has given rise to ‘philosophies’ on the one hand, which are opposed to ‘philosophy’, and say that any philosophical review of creation is only imaginative, Its reality check is not possible, on the other hand, many established scientific principles have broken its feet.

Wittgenstein and other logical positivists believe that the laws of nature cannot be general statements, but are merely propositional functions. Special statements can be obtained by them for testing by placing different values ​​of the outgoing values, but no general statements can be derived, whereas the scientist Einstein believed that every scientist researches with the certain assumption that this world Is a coherent and causative unit. These two conclusions seem contradictory, but they are not the same. These are literally different analyzes of two different levels of reality.

Today, science is also saying the difference between reality and perception, it is believed that in Vedant-Mat, it has been analyzed as the ultimate truth and practical truth. The test of the reality by scientists that the basic power of creation is not in the form, as we know and believe practically, is always consistent with Vedanta. Keep in mind that scientists do not believe that the world is nothing and everything is zero. Eddington has clearly stated in his book ‘New Pathways in Signs’ that ‘I do not mean that the physical world does not exist.’ In fact, the physical world is practically perfect, it has a certain law, orderliness Is. The principle of uncertainty also does not mean that everything in this world is uncertain. In contrast to this, the opinion of scientists and Vedantians is that there is a reason-work sense everywhere in the universe. Every task has a definite reason. The theory of uncertainty implies that we can never fully know the basic power of creation through scientific experiments because the tools and mediums of the experiment are also part of the same creation that is being tested.

The three main philosophical conclusions of scientific analysis are: – (1) The beginning of the universe is a very subtle entity, which is conscious, but not completely devoid of matter. The form of the waves has been known, it clarifies the nature relative to the basic force of nature. This basic power of nature is inferior, immaterial, like the Maya of Vedanta-thought. The pure illusion is closely related to the conscious, but not consciously itself. It is not completely ‘liquid’.

(2) The exact form of creation cannot be known. Because our knowledge has limitations, we cannot know the reality beyond that.

(3) The third conclusion of the scientists is that the physical world is an area of ​​perception (of epiens) and not of reality. The reality is in his background. That is, there is a practical power of the world, not a traditional or traditional entity. Apparently, this is according to Vedanta opinion.

By melodevops

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts