I mean to say not only mathematics but main three branches of science (physics, chemistry and mathematics)!!

I want to say without science and ethics we can not penetrate deeply in the philosophy and without philosophy we can not penetrate deeply into science and ethics!!

Dear Prasad,

You are very correct, we should combine Science and ethics in life, then only better results will come.

That's what I did in my essay,' A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy' have a look please.................

Best wishes to your essay

=snp

Hello dear Friend ,

Happy to see your essay. I liked your philosophical approach, but if I can, the members and experts are going to give you bad scores due to many errors in typing and spacing, it is sad because the generality in philosophy is very well. They are careful with the facts and Spellings, I wish you all the best,

regards

    Dear Steve,

    I will sort out all spelling mistakes and everything regarding grammar and reload that!

    Thanks for reply!!

    PRASAD DIVATE re-uploaded the file DIVATE_knowledge_is_power1.pdf for the essay entitled "Knowledge is power" on 2020-04-23 11:14:23 UTC.

    Dear Prasad Ramesh Divate

    This I want to emphasize, because I agree:

    Without mathematics, we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy, Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics, to both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.

    So we have to use philosophy which is beyond science .There is no other way to go towards completeness.

    You wrote:

    Unpredictibility, uncomputability and undecidability are outcome of intelligence but since mind is beyond intelligence, completeness can be traced only through mind and not through intelligence.!!

    Have I understood your previous position correctly in the example of the mathematician Ramanujan. I do not see in his results intelligence but pure mind. I argue that his results still take a long time to be understood, not only in mathematics but also in philosophy of nature, to get closer to completeness. For me, completeness is in discovered mathematics and not in physics or any other part of human cognition.

    Your essay is among the better ones.

    Regards Branko

    25 days later

    Dear Prasad Ramesh Divate!

    I enjoyed reading your essay.

    You write:

    "I think rationalism is awareness of selfexistence and beyond it is the ultimate reality that is completeness. So one can say that rationality is incompleteness. According to hindu philosophy incompleteness is nothing but incompleteness in knowledge and existence. . God is unpredictable, uncomputable and undecidable because there is incompleteness in our knowledge and existence. Faith is the only way we can remove our incompleteness and not the intelligence."

    I agree with your thought. But Western philosophy approached a similar idea quite logically. I think, therefore I am" - is the phrase by Rene Descartes, which became a foundation of Western philosophy. Moreover, it can be logically followed with: "I think, therefore I am - therefore thought exists". Having admitted this inevitable conclusion we inevitably face the question whether thought existence is the existence we imply speculating of the being of things and processes in the Universe. Yes, that is true. The progress in the sphere of information technology has shown that one cannot deny the objective nature of information processes as well as the objectiveness of information existence as such. It was the global computerization that made us look at the world from a different angle. "What if the whole of the Universe is a single huge superpowerful self-adaptive computer?" There are certain grounds for this kind of hypothesis. Firstly, electromagnetic waves record and transfer information quite naturally. The eye and the brain work together like a scanner, which enables us to see. Secondly, every atom has several discreet states and can be considered as the initial logical element, a cell in a global information structure. Thus, one should admit that we say "Thought exists!" because we realize the fact of its subjective being. Still we trace thought existence because it is the part of objective information reality. As everyone is aware that thought exists in his mind he analogically concludes thought exists in the mind of the other. Now it is high time we admitted that generally this OTHER one is the WHOLE WORLD!

    Descartes was a mathematician and he realized that geometrical forms in space correspond to algebraic numerical forms. He realized that the world of material substance is combined with the world of cognitive substance. I agree with him. I hope you agree with this. I decided to evaluate your essay very positively.

    I wish you the realization of your bold ideas and projects.

    Yours sincerely -

    Paul Poluian,

    Siberian Federal University

      I want to add one more thought. Francis Bacon said, "Knowledge is power!" contrasting this with the biblical truth " For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow". The knowledge of God is sad...

      Prasad,

      You over all the bases well, but do you not think there's still a large amount more we CAN know? Otherwise do we give up scientific advancement? I think you answer that in writing; "The butterfly effect can be stated as there is plenty of room at the bottom and at the top" which I certainly agree.

      My own essay explores those areas by using better foundations than the old ones drawn up when the atom was believed indivisible! So physics has become irrational and flawed. As you say; "The world is rational:"

      Well done. Score boost coming.

      I do think and hope you'll get to read and like mine too.

      Very best

      Peter

      dear peter

      i agree that we should not give up scientific advancement !it is a must!i think science and philosophy should go hand in hand due to which no theory is impossible!

      thank you very much!

      prasad

      Write a Reply...