Sunday, October 28, 2012

Eastern Wisdom and Western Knowledge


by Ananda Coomaraswamy

East and WestThe Crisis of the Modern WorldIntroduction to the Study ofHindu Doctrine, and Man and His Becoming, Luzac, London, (1941-1946) are the first in a series in which the majority of Rene Guenon’s works already published in French will appear in English. Another versions of Man and His Becoming had appeared earlier. M. Rene Guenon is not an “Orientalist” but what the Hindus would call a “master,” formerly resident in Paris, and now for many years in Egypt, where his affiliations are Islamic. His Introduction general à l’étude des doctrines hindoues appeared in 1921. As a preliminary to his further expositions of the traditional philosophy, sometimes called the PhilosophiaPerennis (et Universalis) must be understood, for this “philosophy” has been the common inheritance of all mankind without exception), Guenon cleared the ground of all possible misconceptions in two large and rather tedious, but by no means unnecessary, volumes, The Spiritist Fallacy (a work for which Bhagavad Gita, XVII, 4, “Men of darkness are they who make a cult of the departed and of spirits,” might have served as a motto), and Theosophy, History of a Pseudo-Religion. These are followed by Man and his Becoming according to the Vedanta and The Esoterism of DanteThe King of the World,, St. BernardEast and West and Spiritual Authority and Temporal PowerThe Symbolism of the CrossThe Multiple States of Being, and Oriental Metaphysics. More recently Guenon has published in mimeographed, and subsequently printed, editions The Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times, and The Principles of Infinitesimal Calculus.
In the meantime important articles from Guenon’s pen appeared monthly in La Voile d’Isis, later Études Traditionnelles, a journal of which the appearance was interrupted by the war, but which has been continued as form September-October, 1945. Études Traditionnelles is devoted to “La Tradition Perpétuelle et Unanime, révélée tant par les dogmes et les rites des religions orthodoxies que par la langue universelle des symboles initiatiques”. [The Perpetual and Unanimous Tradition, revealed as much by the dogmas and the rites of the orthodox religions as by the universal language of initiatory symbols.] Of articles that have appeared elsewhere attention may be called to “Islamic Esoterism” in “Cahiers du Sud”. Excerpts from Guenon’s writings, with some comment, have appeared in ‘Triveni’ (1935) and in the Visvabharati Quarterly (1935,1938). A work by L. De Gaigneron entitled Vers la connaissance interdite is closely connected with Guenon’s; it is presented in the form of a discussion in which the Atman (Spiritus), Mentalité (“Reason”, in the current, not the Platonic, sense), and a Roman abbé take part; the “forbidden knowledge is that of the gnosis which the modern Church and the rationalist alike reject, though for different reasons — the former because it cannot tolerate a point of view which considers Christianity only as one amongst other orthodox religions and the latter because, as a great Orientalist (Professor A. B. Keith) has remarked, “such knowledge as is not empirical is meaningless to us and should not be described as knowledge” — an almost classical confession of the limitations of the “scientific” position.
Guenon’s French is at once precise and limpid, and inevitably loses in translation; his subject matter is of absorbing interest, at least to anyone who cares for what Plato calls the really serious things. Nevertheless it has often been found unpalatable; partly for reason already given, but also for reasons that have already been stated, paradoxically enough, by a reviewer of Blakney’s Meister Eckhart in the ‘Harvard Divinity School Bulletin’, who says that, “To an age which believes in personality and personalism, the impersonality of mysticism is baffling; and to an age which is trying to quicken its insight into history the indifference of the mystics to events in time is disconcerting.” As for history, Guenon’s “he who cannot escape from the standpoint of temporal succession so as to see all things in their simultaneity is incapable of the least conception of the metaphysical order” adequately complements Jacob Behmen’s designation of the “history that was once brought to pass” as “merely the (outward) form of Christianity.” For the Hindu, the events of the Rgveda are nowever and dateless, and the Krishna Lila “not an historical event”; and the reliance of Christianity upon supposedly historical “facts” seems to be its greatest weakness. The value of literary history for doxography is very little, and it is for this reason that so many orthodox Hindus have thought of Western scholarship as a “crime”: their interest is not in “what men have believed,” but in the truth. A further difficulty is presented by Guenon’s uncompromising language: “Western civilization is an anomaly, not to say a monstrosity.” Of this a reviewer has remarked that “such sweeping remarks cannot be shared even by critics of Western achievements..” I should have thought that now that its denouement is before our eyes, the truth of such a statement might have been recognized by every unprejudiced European; at any rate Sir George Birdwood in 1915 described modern Western civilization as “Secular, joyless, inane, and self-destructive” and Professor La Piana has said that “What we call our civilization is but a murderous machine with no conscience and no ideals” and might well have said suicidal as well as murderous. It would be very easy to cite innumerable criticisms of the same kind; Sir S. Radhakrishnan holds for example, that “civilization is not worth saving if it continues on its present foundations,” and this it would be hard to deny; Professor A. N. Whitehead has spoke quite as forcibly — “There remains the show of civilization, without any of it realities.”
In any case, if we are to read Guenon at all, we must have outgrown the
temporally provincial view that has for so long and so complacently envisaged a continuous progress of humanity culminating in the twentieth century and be
willing at least to ask ourselves whether there has not been rather a continued decline, “from the stone until now,” as one of the most learned men in the U.S.A. once put it to me. It is not by “science” that we can be saved: “the possession of the sciences as a whole, if it does not include the best, will in some few cases aid but more often harm the owner.” “We are obliged to admit that our European culture is a culture of the mind and senses only”; “The prostitution of science may lead to world catastrophe”; “Our dignity and our interests require that we shall be the directors and not the victims of technical and scientific advance”; “Few will deny that the twentieth century thus far has brought us bitter disappointment.” “We are now faced with the prospect of complete bankruptcy in every department of life.” Eric Gill speaks of the “monstrous inhumanity” of industrialism, and of the modern way of life, as “neither human nor normal nor Christian…. It is our way of thinking that is odd and unnatural.” This sense of frustration is perhaps the most encouraging sign of the times. We have laid stress on these things because it is only to those who feel this frustration, and not to those who still believe in progress, that Guenon addresses himself; to those who are complacent everything that he has to say will seem to be preposterous.
The reactions of Roman Catholics to Guenon are illuminating. One has pointed out that he is a “serious metaphysician,” i.e. one convinced of the truth he expounds and eager to show the unanimity of the Eastern and scholastic traditions, and observes that “in such matters belief and understanding must go together.” Crede ut intelligas [believe in order to understand] is a piece of advice that modern scholars would, indeed, do well to consider; it is, perhaps, just because we have not believed that we have not yet understood the East. The same author writes of East and West, “Rene Guenon is one of the few writers of our time whose work is really of importance … he stands for the primacy of pure metaphysics over all other forms of knowledge, and presents himself as the exponent of a major tradition of thought, predominantly Eastern, but shared in the Middle Ages by the scholastics of the West … clearly Guénon’s position is not that of Christian orthodoxy, but many, perhaps most, of his theses are, in face, better in accord with authentic Thomist doctrine than are many opinions of
devout but ill-instructed Christians.” We should do well to remember that even St. Tomas Aquinas did not disdain to make use of “intrinsic and probable
proofs” derived form the “pagan” philosophers.
Gerald Vann, on the other hand, makes the mistake which the title of his review, “Rene Guenon’s Orientalism” announces; for this is not another “ism,” nor a geographical antitheses but one of modern empiricism and traditional theory. Vann springs to the defense of the very Christianity in which Guenon himself sees almost the only possibility of salvation for the West; only possibility, not because there is no other body of truth, but because the mentality of the West is adapted to and needs a religion of just this sort. But if Christianity should fail, it is just because its intellectual aspects have been submerged, and it has become a code of ethics rather than a doctrine form which all other applications can and should be derived; hardly two consecutive sentences of some of Meister Eckhart’s sermons would be intelligible to an average modern congregation, which does not expect doctrine, and only expects to be told how to behave. If Guenon wants the West to turn to Eastern metaphysics, it is not because they are Eastern but because this is metaphysics. If “Eastern” metaphysics differed form a “Western” metaphysics — as true philosophy differs from what is often so called in our modern universities — one or the other would not be metaphysics. It is from metaphysics that the West has turned away in its desperate endeavor to live by bread alone, an endeavor of which the Dead Sea fruits are before our eyes. It is only because this metaphysics still survives as a living power in Eastern societies, in so far as they have not been corrupted by the withering touch of Western, or rather, modern civilization (for the contrast is not of East or West as such, but of “those paths that the rest of mankind follows as a matter of course” with those post-Renaissance paths that have brought us to our present impasse), and not to Orientalize the West, but to bring back the West to a consciousness of the roots of her own life and of values that have been transvalued in the most sinister sense, that Guenon asks us to turn to the East. He does not mean, and makes it very clear that he does not mean, that Europeans ought to become Hindus or Buddhists, but much rather that they, who are getting nowhere by the study of “the Bible as literature,” or that of Dante “as a poet,” should rediscover Christianity, or what amounts to the same think, Plato (“that great priest,” as Meister Eckhart calls him). I often marvel at men’s immunity to theApologyPhaedo or the seventh chapter of the Republic; I suppose it is because they should not hear, “thought one rose from the dead.”
The issue of “East and West” is not merely a theoretical (we must remind the modern reader that from the standpoint of the traditional philosophy, “theoretical” is anything but a term of disparagement) but also an urgent practical problem. Pearl Buck asks, “Why should prejudices be so strong at this moment? The answer it seems to me is simple. Physical conveyance and other circumstances have forced parts of the world once remote from each other into actual intimacy for which peoples are not mentally or spiritually prepared. … It is not necessary to believe that this initial stage must continue. If those prepared to act as interpreters will do their proper work, we may find that within another generation or two, or even sooner, dislike and prejudice may be gone. This is only possible if prompt and strong measures are taken by peoples to keep step mentally with the increasing closeness to which the war is compelling us.” But is this is to happen, the West will have to abandon what Guenon calls its “proselytizing fury,” an expression that must not be taken to refer only to the activities of Christian missionaries, regrettable as those often are, but of those of all the distributors of modern “civilization” and those of practically all those “educators” who feel that they have more to give than to learn form what are often called the “backward” or “unprogressive” peoples; to whom it does not occur that one may not wish or need to “progress” if one has reached a state of equilibrium that already provides for the realization of what one regards as the greatest purposed of life. It is as an expression of good will and of the best intentions that this proselytizing fury takes on its most dangerous aspects. To many this “fury” can only suggest the fable of the fox that lost its tail, and persuaded the other foxes to cut off theirs. An industrialization of the East may be inevitable, but do not let us call it a blessing that a folk should be reduced to the level of a proletariat, or assume that materially higher standards of living necessarily make for greater happiness. The West is only just discovering, to its great astonishment, that “material inducements, that is, money or the things that money can buy” are by no means so cogent a force as has been supposed; “Beyond the subsistence level, the theory that this incentive is decisive is largely an illusion.” As for the East, as Guenon says, “The only impression that, for example, mechanical invention make on most Orientals is one of deep repulsion; certainly it all seems to them far more harmful than beneficial, and if they find themselves obliged to accept certain things which the present epoch has made necessary, they do so in the hope of future riddance … what the people of the West call ‘rising’ would be called some ‘sinking’; that is what all true Orientals think.” It must not be supposed that because so many Eastern peoples have imitated us in self-defense that they have therefore accepted our values; on the contrary, it is just because the conservative East still challenges all the presuppositions on which our illusion of progress rests, that is deserves our most serious consideration.
There is nothing in economic intimacies that is likely to reduce prejudice or promote mutual understanding automatically. Even when Europeans live amongst Orientals, “economic contact between the Eastern and Western groups is practically the only contact there is. There is very little social or religious give and take between the two. Each lives in a world almost entirely closed to the other – and by ‘closed’ we man not only ‘unknown’ but more: incomprehensible and unattainable.” That is an inhuman relationship, by which both parties are degraded.
Neither must it be assumed that the Orient thinks it important that the masses should learn to read and write. Literacy is a practical necessity in an industrial society, where the keeping of account is all important. But in India, in so far as Western methods of education have not been imposed from without, all higher education is imparted orally, and to have heard is for more important than to have read. At the same time the peasant, prevented by his illiteracy and poverty from devouring the newspapers and magazines that form the daily and almost the only reading of the vast majority of Western “literates,” is, like Hesiod’s Boeotian farmers, and still more like the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders before the era of the board schools, thoroughly familiar with an epic literature of profound spiritual significance and a body of poetry and music of incalculable value; and one can only regret the spread of an “education” that involves the destruction of all these things, or only preserves them as curiosities within the covers of books. For cultural purposed it is not important that the masses should be literate; it is not necessary that anyone should be literate; it is only necessary that there should be amongst the people philosophers (in the traditional, not the modern sense of the word), and that there should be preserved deep respect on the part of laymen for true learning that is the antithesis of the American attitude to a “professor”. In these respects the whole East is still far in advance of the West, and hence the learning of the elite exerts a far profounder influence upon society as a whole than the Western specialist “thinker” can ever hope to wield.
It is not, however, primarily with a protection of the East against the subversive inroads of Western “culture” that Guenon is concerned, but rather with the question, What possibility of regeneration, if any, can be envisaged for the West? The possibility exists only in the event of a return to first principles and to the normal ways of living that proceed from the application of first principles to contingent circumstances; and as it is only in the East that these things are still alive, it is to the East that the West must turn. “It is the West that must take the initiative, but she must be prepared really to go towards the East, not merely seeking to draw the East towards herself, as she has tried to do so far. There is no reason why the East should take this initiative, and there would still be none, even if the Western world were not in such a state as to make any effort in this direction useless. … It now remains for us to show how the West might attempt to approach the East.”
He proceeds to show that the work is to be done in the two fields of metaphysics and religion, and that it can only be carried out on the highest intellectual levels, where agreement on first principles can be reached an apart from any propaganda on behalf of or even apology for “Western civilization.”
The work must be undertaken, therefore, by an “elite.” And as it is here more than anywhere that Guenon’s meaning is likely to be willfully misinterpreted, we must understand clearly what he manes by such an elite. The divergence of the West and East being only “accidental,” “the bringing of these two portions of mankind together and the return of the West to a normal
civilization are really just one and the same thing.” An elite will necessarily work in the first place “for itself, since its members will naturally reap from their own development an immediate and altogether unfailing benefit.” An indirect result — “indirect,” because on this intellectual level one does not think of “doing good” to others, or in terms of “service,” but seeks truth because one needs it oneself — would, or might under favorable conditions, bring about “a return of the West to a traditional civilization,” i.e. one in which “everything is seen as the application and extension of a doctrine whose essence is purely intellectual and metaphysical.”
It is emphasized again and again that such an elite does not mean a body of specialists or scholars who would absorb and put over on the West the forms of an alien culture, nor even persuade the West to return to such a traditional civilization as existed in the Middle Ages. Traditional cultures develop by the application of principles to conditions; the principles, indeed, are unchangeable and universal, but just as nothing can be known except in the mode of the knower, so nothing valid can be accomplished socially without taking into account the character of those concerned and the particular circumstances of the period in which they live. There is no “fusion” of cultures to be hoped for; it would be noting like an “eclecticism” or “syncretism” that an elite would have in view. Neither would such an elite be organized in any way so as to exercise such a direct influence as that which, for example, the Technocrats would like to exercise for the good of mankind. If such an elite ever came into being, the vast majority of Western men would never know of it; it would operate only as a sort of leave, and certainly on behalf of rather than against whatever survives of traditional essence in, for example the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic domains. It is, indeed, a curious fact that some of the most powerful defenders of Christian dogma are to be found amongst Orientals who are not themselves Christians, or ever likely to become Christians, but recognize in the Christian tradition an embodiment of the universal truth to which God has never nor anywhere left himself without a witness.
In the meantime, Guenon asks, “Is this really ‘the beginning of an end’ for the modern civilization? … At least there are many signs which should give food for reflection to those who are still capable of it; will the West be able to regain control of herself in time?” Few would deny that we are faced with the possibility of a total disintegration of culture. We are at war with ourselves, and therefore at war with one another. Western man is unbalanced, and the question, Can he recover himself? is a very real one. No one to whom the question presents itself can afford to ignore the writing of the leading living exponent of a traditional wisdom that is no more essentially Oriental than it is Occidental, though it may be only in the uttermost parts of the earth that it is still remembered and must be sought.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century

Courtesy: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/


In 1931, Kurt Gödel delivered a devastating blow to the mathematicians of his time

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.
Gödel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.Oddly, few people know anything about it.

Allow me to tell you the story.

Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.
So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a set of theorems.
That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.
Yes, it does seem perfectly “obvious” that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that Euclid’s postulates are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.
Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were so many things that were “obviously true,” but nobody could find a way to prove them.
In the early 1900’s, however, a tremendous wave of optimism swept through mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) became convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.
A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.
In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible. He proved they would never prove everything. (Yeah I know, it sounds a little odd, doesn’t it?)
Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”
If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel proved it, and what it means - in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which we know are true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

Stated in Formal Language:

Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.) Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

You can draw a circle around a bicycle. But the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
You can draw the circle around a bicycle factory. But that factory likewise relies on other things outside the factory.
Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Everything that you can count or calculate. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language and philosophy.
Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement
“I am lying.”
“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.

Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted this Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that no statement can prove its own truth.
You always need an outside reference point.

The Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivists” of the time. They insisted that literally anything you could not measure or prove was nonsense. He showed that their positivism was nonsense.
Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic. Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.
He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things that are true than you can prove.

A “theory of everything” - whether in math, or physics, or philosophy - will never be found. Because it is mathematically impossible.
OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?
Here’s what it means:
Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
All closed systems depend on something outside the system.

You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle (from “all things” to “some things”) is deductive reasoning.

Example of a deductive reasoning:
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle (from “some things” to “all things”) is inductive reasoning.

Examples of inductive reasoning:
1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal
1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs all falling objects

Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.
For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time.
Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.
You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can - around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):
There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
The universe as we know it is finite - finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system - i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:
In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.8 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.

All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
When we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also self-aware.
Isn’t it interesting how all these conclusions sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?

Maybe that’s why it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!
Interesting aside…

If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:
“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”
If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know all systems rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the folks at Infidels cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause.
Therefore Atheism violates the laws mathematics.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.
Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.

Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. They are two sides of the same coin. It had been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.
No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by rational thought, science and mathematics.
Perry Marshall
“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.” -Galileo Galile, 1623

Mind,Knowledge & Religion ~ Albert Einstein

A Short Essay By Einstein
Courtesy: Prof.Lakshman Madurasinghe on Friday, 25 February 2011 at 17:51

"How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people -- first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving... 

"I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves -- this critical basis I call the ideal of a pigsty. The ideals that have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. Without the sense of kinship with men of like mind, without the occupation with the objective world, the eternally unattainable in the field of art andscientific endeavors, life would have seemed empty to me. The trite objects of human efforts -- possessions, outward success, luxury -- have always seemed to me contemptible.

"My passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility has always contrastedoddly with my pronounced lack of need for direct contact with otherhuman beings and human communities. I am truly a 'lone traveler'and have never belonged to my country, my home, my friends, or even my immediate family, with my whole heart; in the face of all these ties, I have never lost a sense of distance and a need for solitude..."

"My political ideal is democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized. It is an irony of fate that I myself have been the recipient of excessive admiration and reverence from my fellow-beings, through no fault, and no merit, of my own. The cause of this may well be the desire, unattainable for many, to understand the few ideas to which I have with my feeble powers attained through ceaseless struggle. 

I am quite aware that for any organization to reach its goals, one man must do the thinking and directing and generally bear the responsibility. But the led must not be coerced, they must be able to choose their leader. In my opinion, an autocratic system of coercion soon degenerates; force attracts men of low morality... The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the political state, but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates  the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling. 

"This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor... This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism  - how passionately I hate them!Truly I hate them.

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. 

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."




Why do we do Namaste?


 Indians greet each other with namaste.The two palms are placed together in front of the chest and the head bows whilst saying theword namaste. This greeting is for all – people younger than us, of our own age, those older than friends, even strangers and us.

There are five forms of formal traditionalgreeting enjoined in the shaastr as of which namaskaram is one. This is understood as prostration but it actually refers to paying homage as we do today when we greet each other with a namaste.

Namaste could be just a casual or formal greeting, a cultural convention or an act of worship. However there is much more to it than meets the eye. In Sanskrit namah + te =namaste. It means – I bow to you – my greetings, salutations or prostration to you. Namaha can also be literally interpreted as "na ma" (not mine). It has a spiritual
significance of negating or reducing one's ego in the presence of another.

The real meeting between people is the meeting of their minds. When we greet another, we do so with namaste , which means,"may our minds meet," indicated by the folded palms placed before the chest. The bowing down of the head is a gracious form of extending friendship in love and humility.

The spiritual meaning is even deeper.

The life force, the divinity, the Self or the Lord in me is the same in all.. Recognizing this oneness with the meeting of the palms, we salute with head bowed the Divinity in the person we meet. That is why sometimes, we close our eyes as we do namaste to a revered person or the Lord – as if to look within. The gesture is often accompanied by words like
"Ram Ram", "Jai Shri Krishna", "Namo Narayana", "Jai Siya Ram", "Om Shanti" etc – indicating the recognition of this divinity.

When we know this significance, our greeting does not remain just a superficial gesture or word but paves the way for a deeper communion with another in an atmosphere of love and respect.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Lightenings


Earth originally shared this post:




Lightning Strikes over the Puyehue-Cordón Caulle Volcano
Puyehue-Cordón Caulle, Chile. June 6, 2011,
Image Credit & Copyright: Francisco Negroni




Skydiver breaks speed of sound in historic jump from edge of space....



~there is no limit to human adventure...what is needed is determination

There is no limit to human adventure...what is needed is determination

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Instincts of what is Called the Corporate..

What Corporate world does?
Cycle-I
(1) Feed people engineered food so that they get health problems and create a market for Pharmaceuticals, health services and associated business.
(2) Then inform consumers the advantage of un-engineering,
organic and natural products, and sell to revert back to the cycle.
Cycle-2
(1)Built alliance with Political powers and create crisis leading to war
(2) Produce weapons and sell to damage people and country's infrastructure
(3) Grab the business of reconstruction and heath...
......invent and explore similar ways....
Cycle-3.......>


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Sardar Patel's Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on Tibet



My dear Jawaharlal,

Ever since my return from Ahmedabad and after the Cabinet meeting the same day which I had to attend at practically fifteen minutes’ notice and for which I regret I was not able to read all the papers, I have been anxiously thinking over the problem of Tibet and I thought I should share with you what is passing through my mind.

2. I have carefully gone through the correspondence between the External Affairs Ministry and our Ambassador in Peking and through him the Chinese Government. I have tried to peruse this correspondence as favourably to our Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible, but, I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a result of this study. The Chinese Government have tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intentions. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to instil into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means. There can be no doubt that, during the period covered by this correspondence, the Chinese must have been concentrating for an onslaught on Tibet. The final action of the Chinese, in my judgement, is little short of perfidy.

The tragedy of it is that the Tibetans put faith in us; they chose to be guided by us; and we have been unable to get them out of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy or Chinese malevolence. From the latest position, it appears that we shall not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama. Our Ambassador has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions. As the External Affairs Ministry remarked in one of their telegrams, there was a lack of firmness and unnecessary apology in one or two representations that he made to the Chinese Government on our behalf. It is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in the so-called threat to China from Anglo–American machination in Tibet. Therefore, if the Chinese put faith in this, they must have distrusted us so completely as to have taken us as tools or stooges of Anglo–American diplomacy or strategy. This feeling, if genuinely entertained by the Chinese in spite of your direct approaches to them, indicates that, even though we regard ourselves as the friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as their friends. With the Communist mentality of “Whoever is not with them being against them,” this is a significant pointer, of which we have to take due note.

During the last several months, outside the Russian Camp, we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into the UNO and in securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa. We have done everything we could to assuage Chinese feelings, to allay its apprehensions and to defend its legitimate claims, in our discussions and correspondence with America and Britain and in the UNO. In spite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of scepticism, perhaps mixed with a little hostility. I doubt if we can go any further than we have done already to convince China of our good intentions, friendliness and goodwill. In Peking we have an Ambassador who is eminently suitable for putting across the friendly point of view. Even he seems to have failed to convert the Chinese. Their last telegram to us is an act of gross discourtesy not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in wild insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences. It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy.
In the background of this, we have to consider what new situation now faces us as a result of the disappearance of Tibet, as we know it, and the expansion of China almost up to our gates. Throughout history, we have seldom been worried about our north-east frontier. The Himalaya has been regarded as an impenetrable barrier against any threat from the north. We had a friendly Tibet which gave us no trouble. The Chinese were divided. They had their own domestic problems and never bothered us about our frontier. In 1914, we entered into a convention with Tibet which was not endorsed by the Chinese. We seem to have regarded Tibetan autonomy as extending to independent treaty relationship. Presumably, all that we required was Chinese counter-signature. The Chinese interpretation of suzerainty seems to be different.
We can, therefore, safely assume that very soon they will disown all the stipulations which Tibet has entered into with us in the past. That throws into the melting pot all frontier and commercial settlements with Tibet on which we have been functioning and acting during the last half a century. China is no longer divided. It is united and strong. All along the Himalayas in the north and north-east, we have, on our side of the frontier, a population ethnologically and culturally not different from Tibetans or Mongoloids. The undefined state of the frontier and the existence on our side of a population with its affinities to Tibetans or Chinese have all the elements of potential trouble between China and ourselves.

Recent and bitter history also tells us that Communism is no shield against imperialism and that Communists are as good or as bas as imperialists as any other. Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side but also include important parts of Assam. They have their ambitions in Burma also. Burma has the added difficulty that it has no McMahon Line round which to build up even the semblance of an agreement. Chinese irredentism and Communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the Western Powers. The former has a cloak of ideology which makes it ten times more dangerous. In the guise of ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national and historical claims. The danger from the north and north-east, therefore, becomes both communist and imperialist. While our western and north-eastern threats to security are still as prominent as before, a new threat has developed from the north and north-east.
Thus, for the first time, after centuries, India’s defence has to concentrate itself on two fronts simultaneously. Our defence measures have so far been based on the calculations of a superiority over Pakistan. In our calculations we shall now have to reckon with Communist China in the north and north-east — a communist China which has definite ambitions and aims and which does not, in any way, seem friendly towards us.
4. Let me also consider the political considerations on this potentially troublesome frontier. Our northern or north-eastern approaches consist of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the Tribal Areas in Assam. From the point of view of communications they are weak spots. Continuous defensive lines do not exist. There is almost an unlimited scope for infiltration. Police protection is limited to a very small number of passes. There too, our outposts do not seem to be fully manned. The contact of these areas with us, is, by no means, close and intimate. The people inhabiting these portions have no established loyalty or devotion to India. Even Darjeeling and Kalimpong areas are not free from pro-Mongoloid prejudices.

During the last three years, we have not been able to make any appreciable approaches to the Nagas and to the hill tribes in Assam. European missionaries and other visitors had been in touch with them, but their influence was, in no way, friendly to India or Indians. In Sikkim, there was political ferment some time ago. It is quite possible that discontent is smouldering there. Bhutan is comparatively quite, but its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap. Nepal has a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force; it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population as well as with enlightened ideas of the modern age. In these circumstances, to make people alive to the new danger or to make them defensively strong is a very difficult task indeed, and that difficulty can be got over only by enlightened firmness, strength and a clear line of policy.
I am sure the Chinese and their source of inspiration, Soviet Russia, would not miss any opportunity of exploiting these weak spots, partly in support of their ideology and partly in support of their ambitions. In my judgement, therefore, the situation is one in which we cannot afford either to be complacent or to be vacillating. We must have a clear idea of what we wish to achieve and also of the methods by which we should achieve it. Any faltering or lack of decisiveness in formulating out objectives or in pursuing our policy to attain those objectives is bound to weaken us and increase the threats which are so evident.

Courtesy:IDR: By RSN Singh
IssueBook Excerpt: The Unmaking of Nepal
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151132471828071&set=a.98977928070.88732.87167763070&type=1C

Friday, October 12, 2012

A Beautiful Story in Panchatantra


Panchtantra is one of the mankind's oldest book of stories,written in probably,3rd Century BC,to educate three half witted Princes in the art of Statecraft,introduces to West via a Persian translation in AD 570,
In a huge well lived two grou...ps of frogs always fighting for territory and resources of the well.The King of one group who was very intelligent,decided to befend a cobra and get him into the well so that it could finish off the other group.Cobra came in to the well and started eating frogs of other group one by one. King ws very happy
and felt that his aim of controlling the well and its resources was achieved.
However, soon the cobra ate all the frogs of the other group and turned his attention to the frogs of King's group.Cobra told the frog king that he needs food to survive and so is helpless.Despite the king's plea,the cobra started eating King's subjects
and family members one by one,and ultimately ate the king himself.
There has been a general tendency in people, specially in power to take help of evil and negative forces to achieve their goals,realising little that these forces have their own agenda.They destroy everything in their wake including their creator, sponsor and can not be controlled once unleashed.

It is therefore, best to keep them away.

I want to be Educated






Monday, October 08, 2012

The Tribes of the Indian Nation

Since it's Columbus day, I figured I'd share this post again. After all, Columbus paved the way for the genocide of the American Natives. He ordered the slaughter of thousands of Native Americans for no fucking reason other than the fact that he was a greedy, power obsessed sociopath that thought he had the right to do and take whatever he pleased. It's no wonder the Illuminati gave him a holiday.. 

The LARGEST holocaust in Earth Human History was the slaughter of indigenous tribes worldwide. Within a few hundred years, 'The Church' slaughtered over half a BILLION people worldwide.. From Australia, to Asia, to Europe, to Africa, to North and South America, they massacred or enslaved every tribe they could get their hands on. They literally tried to wipe them out of existence. In some cases, they succeeded..

Why? SUPPRESSION OF KNOWLEDGE! These tribes were NOT ignorant savages. If you have watched the Ancient Aliens series, you know that ETs have visited humanity MANY times throughout our history. Some of them gave the Shamans of these tribes highly advanced knowledge of our existence, our planet, our universe, language, mathematics, science, you name it. They taught them many, many things. The Ruling Elite have killed far more people than you will ever know, trying to keep the population ignorant, and their lies about Religion afloat. — with Shannon Hamilton, Shannon Hamilton, Ferdinando Coronati and India ForeverMoore Carter.
By Lara Starr, via Facebook,  · 23 August