|Food for Thought
by Pranab RayChaudhuri
E- mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
This page has been viewed times. Click here to give your comments
While reading ‘Chirakumar Sabha’, a play by the Nobel Laureate Rabindra Nath Tagore,
during my college days or a few years later, I noticed "Akhoy-babu" a character in that play,
mentioning in the first Sabha, a meeting, that they would only discuss Literature in these
Sabhas as scientific discussions were quite difficult since man did not know yet whether he
was seeing direct or inverted. I consider Rabindra Nath to be quite enlightened in Science
also. So, I started thinking and very soon realized what he said was true. The questions that
arises from it
1) If, I have to prove man sees direct, can I ?
2) If so, how?
3) If not, then, what should we believe - man can see direct or see inverted?
4) The structure that we have of the nature is based on considerations that we
see direct. But, if we see really inverted, what should be the structure of nature?
5) Is such a structure of nature possible?
We are aware water has anomalous expansion, which proves to be very beneficial to
mankind. Do we know the reason why water behaves so?
Is there any other product having such property i.e. behave normally within a temperature zone
(for water, 4ºCand above) and behave just the opposite in other temperature zone (for water,
lower temperature up-to 4ºC).
What would have been our fate if water did not have this property?
We know if something is stationary, it is at rest and if something is moving, it is at motion. We
now also know as earth is moving, nothing on is at absolute rest on earth. So, on earth
everything is either at relative rest or at relative motion. Is absolute rest or absolute motion
possible anywhere in any form?
Depending on our mood, current mental condition and existing situation, sometime time
passes very fast and sometime very slow. We all have experience, when we go through any
enjoyable situation, hours pass in minutes and when the situation is boring minutes become
hours. But we know one hour is one hour, time period is absolute. So, the apparent time
period varies. What is beneficial to us- increased time period or reduced time period or a
combination of both?
Is everything in this nature necessary? If not, what are unnecessary? How can we be sure
these are unnecessary, as what is necessary today may become unnecessary tomorrow and
vice-versa, what is necessary to me may be unnecessary to you and vice-versa? If we
consider everything is necessary, what is our necessity as we are also a part of the nature?
We are aware it is very difficult to create a balanced object. We also experience slight
unbalancing makes a balanced system totally unbalanced. Universe is on one side balanced
as each individual object has a fixed speed and attraction towards each other and on other
side unbalanced as seasons change, climates change, durations of day and night change
without following any predicted periodicity to give us variation. So, we can say Universe is a
balanced system with an intentional unbalancing. Since according to our capability it is very
difficult to create a balanced object and almost impossible to maintain balance in a system if it
has a little unbalancing, is accidental creation of Universe possible or there is a creator?
We understand if something exists it must be measurable. Human progress exists as today’s
men live in a higher standard than the yesterday’s men. Hence, progress must be measurable.
We also understand to measure a quantity we must have a unit. What should be the unit for
measuring human progress?
Lifecycle is broadly divided into birth, growth, reproduction and death. Individually we have no
control on our own birth and death. We have very little control on growth. We cannot also
control reproduction. We have some means to reduce reproduction but nothing to increase.
We also have very little control on growth. Can we then control our life? If we cannot why we
give every effort for it?
Click here to give your comments