Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dipayankar I feel nature cannot be divided. There has to be a TOE somewhere. Else why should something which is absolutely true at one reference falsify itself in some other reference? There has to be a missing link, a hidden bridge. Maybe its beyond the comprehension of humans....
My dear friend... I get your point. However science can be divided into two realms. One is where there is solid reasoning and evidence. The second realm is where there is a pointer to a truth and the same can be proved at a later time. However religion does not fall in any of these categories.. |
It is not that one truth denies the other truth, Dipayankar, both truths exist at the same time, but only within their own context. Water and fire are both true, but when put together water will extinct the fire or the fire will evaporate the water. Only when the water is frozen and a campfire is built on top can the two exist right next to each other.
I do not lose any sleep over the fact that water and fire cannot exist at the same time and place. In my mind, I see them as separate entities, and I do not think less of water or fire — they are incomparable.
The truth is something that has been proven, while the pointer to the truth is just that: a pointer to the truth — it does not make it the truth. There are very solid aspects to science, but in science the realm of theory has a less full-evidenced location. Sometimes, opposite theories can get built out of the same set of facts. In biology, for instance, nurture versus nature is one of those long standing divisions, and in time one has gained the upper hand for a decade or two, only to be given second position (for another decade or two). In math, the natural numbers are either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc (in number theory) or 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 etc (in set theory).
These examples are not showing enormous discrepancies, but just like Einstein's theory of relativity, the tiny discrepancies are important and fundamental, too.